Posts by can

    In the past few days I've been doing low-expectations, low-effort testing on a concept similar to that which started the thread - still electrolysis, but differently from usual LENR experiments, or "unconventional". Sometimes it looks as if the changes I'm doing are affecting Geiger readings, but as they can go either way or not act at all, and that they're of small magnitude compared to the background noise it could all be wishful thinking. Yesterday evening's "bump" (2019-02-24) seems unusual compared to the average for the past few days, however.



    In short, I've set up a few bimetallic corrosion junctions using some of the metal pieces I used in past tests (washers, coins), two of which optionally heated at low temperature (about 40-45 °C). Occasionally I add 10% HCl electrolyte, which diffuses through the narrow gap. The one showing the highest voltage (measuring it precisely is difficult due to them short-circuiting when moved around, but I have observed a 300 mV peak with a multimeter) is an aluminium-mild steel one as shown in the photo below.



    The aluminium heat sink here is at a positive potential (anode) relatively to the mild steel piece (cathode). Hydrogen gas is evolved in the process and I expect that on a small scale, large pressures within the materials (due to hydrogen ambrittlement) and the likely porous structures formed at the metal-metal junction may be formed. So, in principle this should not be too different than standard electrolytic experiments, only moving at a slower (possibly much slower) pace.


    Interestingly, according to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2012.10.032 the galvanic series ordering can be significantly affected by the electrolyte, so typical ones found on the internet for example for seawater might not be perfectly applicable to different conditions.



    Quote

    Abstract: Galvanic series of AISI 304, 316, 316L, and 316Ti austenitic stainless steels, AISI 410 and 420 martensitic stainless steels, 63Cu37Zn brass, Cu, Al, and AlMg1 were established for 10% (wt.) hydrochloric, phosphoric, sulphamic, sulphuric, nitric, citric, acetic, and methanesulphonic (MSA) acids used as cleaners in order to predict galvanic corrosion when coupling these materials. It was found that each acid has a distinctive order of metallic materials in a galvanic series. The largest corrosion potential difference in all acids exists between Al-based materials and stainless steels, as well as Cu-based materials indicating the use of Al-based materials as sacrificial electrodes.

    Dr Richard

    Unfortunately this KFeO2 compound (the active phase of K-Fe2O3 catalysts as reported by Muhler et al - excerpt from the paper here) is very sensitive to humid air and instantly decomposes if it comes in contact with water at low temperature, so using it in ordinary electrolytic experiments would be difficult. However this method - possibly in an improved/less crude form - could be used to synthesize small quantities to be employed in a low-temperature dry cell, preferably in a vacuum.


    By the way: although potassium carbonate is generally used to synthesize it at high temperatures, KOH or other potassium sources can be used as well. In older texts/patents sometimes the Shell 105 formulation is listed as using KOH. Example:


    https://patents.google.com/patent/US2813137A


    Alan Smith

    I linked that paper the same day it was published in the previous page, but I guess the post wasn't visible enough and the following discussion put it out of view.


    Today Leif Holmlid has added a comment on the retraction issued by PLOS ONE.


    https://journals.plos.org/plos…ae-4e3e-a404-8e19f711e069


    Quote

    Retraction opposed by me

    Posted by lholmlid on 23 Feb 2019 at 14:24 GMT

    The action by Plos One on my paper which was retracted by the journal on 19-02-23 is astonishing. The retraction procedure did not involve a scientific evaluation. I have informed the journal that the experimental results on the time constants are correct. Such results have been published by me in several other papers, both prior to and after the Plos One publication. They have also been repeated by other groups. There is thus no problem with the experimental results. The suggested problem with "amplified electronics placed in the vicinity of intense laser irradiation experiments" is easily disproved by the results given in the paper. Three different decay time constants are measured, which agree with the well-known meson decay time constants. The time constants are different at the inner and the outer collector just moving the cable with the laser and the oscilloscope unchanged. The decay time constants are also different with different collector bias. Some types of signals do not even have a long decay time constant. See for example table 1 with data from figs. 12 and 11. The suggested problem with the electronics clearly does not exist. The laser used is also quite weak, at < 0.2 J pulse energy, in 5 ns long pulses not really giving "an intense laser irradiation experiment" whatever that means with so much stronger lasers used in many laboratories today.

    The main content of this Plos One paper is further not the decay time constants, which had been published previously elsewhere, but the main content concerns deflection of the relativistic particles with velocity up to 0.75c in magnetic fields. These results are not influenced by any decay time constant measurements, and they show very clearly that the relativistic particles are lighter than baryons, with masses like mesons or muons. This is the main result of the paper and it cannot be discarded as due to laser created artifacts, but this result has been overlooked or not understood by the reviewers.

    Of course, I do not yet know the exact process creating the mesons, but it is expected of me as author that I should propose some mechanism for this. Such a process is suggested on p. 5 in the paper. It has been interpreted by other scientists as implying that the number of baryons is not conserved, which is not in agreement with the so-called baryon law. Of course, it is just an empirical rule. Time will show if this is a case where the baryon number is truly not conserved, of if another process is responsible for the meson generation. Of course, the few lines on p. 5 giving a model for the meson generation could be removed or weakened, but Plos One has instead retracted the entire paper with its large number of advanced experiments. This not a scientific and unbiased treatment.


    Funny thing is that I was looking at the article to reference some information contained therein, and from one page refresh to the other the retraction notice appeared. So I caught that almost in real-time. I wonder if this is due to the recent Rossi-induced attention to his work.


    By the way, I found from Holmlid's ResearchGate account:



    Perhaps it could be worth checking out regularly if the editors suddenly decide to retract older published papers from Holmlid.

    magicsound

    Radio waves should propagate at the speed of light. If the collector plate/foil is located at some distance from the cell (for example a few tens of cm) it should be possible to discern the RF signal directly caused by a strong impulse (a spark/arc event) from the signal caused by particles with mass moving at lower speeds, if any - the latter should arrive with a delay of several nanoseconds.


    The above analysis requires that the oscilloscope can be triggered by a clear signal that is expected/hoped to induce a reaction and won't work for general broadband noise. For this, simply checking out whether such continuous RF noise as measured by the oscilloscope can be enhanced by increasing the thickness of the collector plate (i.e. its volume, keeping the rest the same), which could at least indicate some unusual interaction with the material, and/or if it looks anomalously large under "active" conditions, might already be of interest, and that's what I was proposing for the most part.


    For the sake of completeness it's worth mentioning that for measuring a continuous ("spontaneous", not laser-caused, although the laser can start it) signal, Holmlid uses a different method involving a modified/custom gamma spectrometer with the scintillator replaced with layers of metal like Al or Cu and longer measuring distances. Below are a couple slides from a researcher who replicated his findings with his collaboration and presented his progress at ICCF-21.


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/8ewf…dersen%20S%206-5.pdf?dl=0

    https://www.iccf21.com/slides-oral-presentations



    Alternatively, perhaps instead of dealing with complex oscilloscope setups and custom gamma spectrometers one could take note from Parkhomov and use writable DVDs/CD-Rs as detectors for strange radiation, but there are not many details on how the measurements should be performed, and earlier on I personally found that keeping the disks clean and free of handling-caused scratches is a real challenge. Here are translated slides of a report from his group using this method:


    https://e-catworld.com/wp-cont…/10/Strange-Radiation.pdf

    https://e-catworld.com/2018/10…with-alexander-parkhomov/ (associated Q&A on ECW)



    As a side note, depending on local conditions, a discharge could be traveling within very small areas and reach unusually large power densities. Brian Ahern suggested this in his lapsed patent application, which has some elements applicable to Woodpecker-like experiments (but he used there high voltages and a deliberately pulsed signal).


    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0233061.html


    Quote

    Typically, the electric current pulses flow on the outer surface of a conductor. Discharges through a dielectric embedded with metallic particles behave very differently. The nanoparticles act as a series of short circuit elements that confine the breakdown currents to very, very small internal discharge pathways. This inverse skin effect can have great implications for energy densification in composite materials. Energetic reactions described fully herein are amplified by an inverse skin effect. These very small discharge pathways are so narrow that the magnetic fields close to them are amplified to magnitudes unachievable by other methods.

    magicsound

    I was probably unclear but the idea was that a dedicated impedance-matched cable would be used to directly connect the plates/foils to the low-impedance oscilloscope input rather than using the passive probe. This is not an original idea of mine, but it's inspired by what Leif Holmlid did in some of his experiments using an oscilloscope to measure the particle flux at various distances, although he does this with the plates/foil in a vacuum (at higher pressures the particles - the charged ones at least - are reportedly quenched. Source).


    As he might be observing what other researchers consider strange radiation, the method used could be of interest.


    http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218301315500809





    [...]


    magicsound

    I agree that it would be difficult to fully trust neutron measurements at this stage.


    This is where other types of measurements could come into play; they might also be important for the detection of "strange radiation" (SR) in similar experiments involving abrupt electrical pulses and potential issues with RFI.


    If SR is or can manifest itself as some exotic sort of penetrating neutral particle associated with ordinary RF emission, it might be detected by the charge given to a material as it passes through it, ionizing it to some extent. If this is the case, a larger volume of material in the flight path of the particle(s) should give rise to a larger charge. A possible test could be therefore using plates (or thick foils) of increasing thickness while keeping area, distance and orientation the same, and checking out if there is any large difference in the measured signal.


    If anomalies show on this regard, it might also turn out that the energy of the SR emitted on a full sphere around the reactor is anomalously large. Knowing area and distance of the 'scope-attached plate precisely could therefore be useful to attempt calculating it (assuming isotropic emission).

    magicsound

    What's your verdict on the rise observed with the neutron counters? Is it just an RFI-induced artifact?


    On a loosely related note, do you think the oscilloscope would be expected to pick up any significant signal with an arrangement similar to the diagram below?


    magicsound

    The audio could easily be split in Audacity after opening the video (which I downloaded with Youtube-dl), but in .WAV format it will be enormous and other compressed formats will further degrade the already compressed quality. But here are the links anyway (after conversion to mp3):


    Shared folder with the extracted audio files:

    https://mega.nz/#F!20Y1nSxB!cVkeBQPYA9l6RdF0umOBRQ


    Screenshot of the entire waveform:



    Detail of where it started:



    The spectrum on the right channel shows a fairly stable carrier frequency of about 840 Hz. At times the noise seems to have a kind of fractal quality:




    EDIT: by the way, from the previously posted data to me it looks as if the neutron counter activity was higher during the earlier part where the resonating noise was the highest (before it got substantially reduced), but the run was short and there is always the possibility of RF interference during this type of test. The Geiger counter and gamma spectrometer didn't seem to show a similar rise during that part.


    EDIT2: here is a different perspective on the data:




    EDIT3: if the neutron count measurements are to be taken seriously, they could be viewed like this (rates are approximate, based on Brian's Neutron Counter):


    The temperature bump in the middle seems to have occurred during a current spike. It appears that to some extent the higher the resonant noise, the higher the current. When the noise stopped, current decreased.


    The neutron counters seem to be correlated with each other, but as for whether there is also a correlation with experimental conditions, I'm not sure.


    magicsound

    It looks like something strange with electrolyte temperature happened just before the noise subsided for the most part (at 15:19:34). The full data could clarify this (I sampled the points manually from the video). The 108.1 °C temperature from 15:27:13 seems to be a glitch.


    magicsound

    It seems as if the noise could be electrolyte temperature-dependent. It could be due to cavitation bubbles forming and collapsing back before reaching the surface. Water is known to produce more noise when it's close to boiling rather than completely boiling, so it could be related with this effect. How this relates to the discharge events is not clear, but it could indicate that temperature control is desirable.


    https://engineering.stackexcha…different-phenomena/12001




    EDIT: here a screenshot of discharge events at 15:15:14 as displayed in the now ended live stream video.


    A rather high-pitched loud noise is at times audible on the right channel; that sounds like the resonating noise I used to get in a different setup. The radio also appears to respond to it to some extent with more broadband noise.


    EDIT: if I try to isolate the left channel (Radio) on my PC, I can also hear it there now.


    • 15:13:13 Power on. Loud resonating noise appeared right away
    • 15:15:15 Resonating noise now mostly continuously occurring
    • 15:19:35 The noise mostly disappeared from both channels.
    • 15:25:00 (approximately) some noise events also picked up by the radio seem to be occurring in an increasing manner. Water temperature is >90 °C
    • 15:26:50 There was a sort of flash or explosion. The electrodes after that seemed to be short-circuiting.15:28:00 the electrodes seem to be in a short-circuited state with current at 15A and no RF emission produced
    • 15:31:50 There was a bright flash
    • 15:32:40 The electrodes seem to be short-circuiting
    • 15:34:17 Power off
    • 15:34:40 Power on
    • 15:38:20 There seems to be increasing noise especially on the left channel (Radio)
    • 15:40:00 Power off; all noise also clearly lower. I noticed that radiation instrumentation readings are frozen and it seems they have been so since about 15:27:00. Water temperature has also remained fixed at 108.1 °C for a while.

    For the record, today I tried again the old experiment type that used to cause the resonant noise, but using KOH (at an approximately 0.2M concentration) instead of HCl and 1x 0.09 mm mica spacers to obtain a narrow gap, and besides significant boiling, no resonant noise was observed, even after letting the electrolyte solution almost completely evaporate. Broadband noise occurred initially, but as current slowly increased throughout the test (and other changes to the gap occurred) that decreased to a low level as well in the end.



    The following video was made at the end of the test. Current was about 12-14A. At the end a short-circuit occurs and current roughly doubles.


    (Link)


    Significant boiling also occurred in the 7-10A range earlier on. When short-circuits occurred, current increased anywhere between 32-40A (at 12V) and boiling or evaporation suddenly stopped while sometimes a continuous arc under water would be produced (not caught on video).


    I planned adding more "insulation" to check the response from the Geiger counter, but as far as impressions go, this pathway using KOH does not seem profitable - unless excess heat is actually being generated, although that will require more advanced calorimetry and power monitoring than I can do with my current equipment in order to be measured appropriately.


    EDIT: Geiger data below; red lines denote test started-finished.



    EDIT: higher quality video posted.

    That we have, reagent grade. But it doesn't have the lattice structure of vanadium dioxide.


    It would have to be modified at least with the addition of other element(s) and suitable heat treatment. I mentioned that because in the list there was also "FeO2" and I don't think that iron oxide in such form exists, but it can notably be made tunneled by making Fe2O3 react with K oxides, the end result incidentally being the active compound in iron oxide-based catalysts.


    https://materialsproject.org/materials/mp-566313/


    But if you're going the Atom Ecology/"it occurs in nature" way, perhaps the most natural way would probably be attempting to load a V metal salt solution into a suitable molecular sieve (zeolite or possibly also clay materials) which would be inherently tunneled.


    Several years ago a researcher (besides Iraj Parchamazad who is known in the LENR field for using a similar approach) tried that with apparently positive results, although he didn't use Vanadium.


    https://docs.google.com/viewer…xneDpjZGMzM2VjNGQwY2ExZDc

    I think vanadium pentoxide V2O5 would be the most commonly used vanadium oxide. It's also used in industrial catalysts for sulfuric acid production.