Posts by can

    To be clear, I did not post the above message here myself, it was copied by a moderator from another thread.

    I suppose it was in reference to Stan Gleeson and Don Holloman's fate with their experimentation with nuclear waste remediation, but duplicating posts like this makes maintaining them difficult (e.g what if I wanted to update, correct or add something?).

    In the context of the reviewing process I mentioned earlier, I collected some information on the electrolytic cell associated with the "Neal-Gleeson process" that was sometimes mentioned by Hal Fox relatively to Charge clusters / EVOs. Posting here too (from my notes) as this could be interesting or informative for others as well.


    * * *


    Between the mid 1990s and the early 2000s, Stan Gleeson (occasionally spelled Gleason) worked with the currently disbanded Cincinnati Group (a "religiously-inspired group of researchers" according to a source) on a high-pressure electrolytic cell for nuclear waste remediation, using light water and Zr or Ti electrodes. From the abandoned 2003 patent application the design seems simple enough to be adapted for atmospheric (open) operation with less hazardous elements.


    Operating characteristics were such that spark discharges occurred, as well as extensive electrode erosion. AC was typically used by the group, but DC could be as well. To be clear, this cell has been cited by Hal Fox and others in the context of Charge Clusters / EVOs as the "Neal-Gleeson process", with Neal being a co-author from the original Cincinnati group.


    "Old guard" cold fusion researchers do not seem to think that the cell worked as claimed: according to Jed Rothwell, who thinks that the initial measurements were crude, Michael McKubre suspected that cell seals were not good enough and thus that the inventors were breathing radioactive particles and that radioactivity was lost that way. Peter Gluck has written that in testing at ITIM (in Cluj, Romania) on a cell that was donated to him by Stan Gleeson it was shown that the radioactivity was transferred to the precipitate formed during operation and therefore that no global reduction in radioactivity was occurring.


    Inventor deaths

    Stan Gleeson died at age 48 in year 2000, together with the other inventor from the Cincinnati group Donald Holloman (also known as Don) in 2004 due to radiation-induced complications. Peter Gluck mentioned that they died of leukemia and that in their later period of activity they worked on experiments with Americium.


    Patent application

    US20030201167A1 - Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing means


    Patent application number: 10/128,292, 60/052,077 (provisional, not available)


    Abstract

    Quote

    A pressurized electrochemical bulk-process method & apparatus, adapted to real-time tracking and adjustment of electro-hydraulic parameters, comprising a high-pressure reaction chamber of the type of a horizontal cylindrical electrolytic cell, whose zirconium walls constitute one electrode in contact with an electrolytic solvent containing the target material to be processed. The other electrode is a thin vertical zirconium disk partially submerged in the electrolyte, which fills less than half of the chamber. Because the electrolyte's resistance is not constant, the current cannot be controlled merely by adjusting the voltage in the 60-cycle AC current; instead, the current amperage must be monitored in real time and the voltage either lowered in response to sharp amperage increases in order to keep the cell's temperature (and hence its pressure) below the safety limits at which the disk-shaped Teflon end-gaskets sealing the cylinder's ends will rupture, or else increased, during normal operation, to compensate for decreases in current caused by various reactions occurring in the electrolyte.


    Summary

    • Zirconium electrodes
      • Titanium also suggested in the patent description
      • Cylinder walls as one electrode
      • Counterelectrode as a vertical disk (washer) partially immersed in the electrolyte
    • 60 Hz AC current used (typically)
      • 40-200V, 0-10A
    • Operating temperature 15-150 °C
    • Electrolyte resistance not constant
    • Sharp current increases possible (i.e. spark discharges)
    • Control through current (amperage), not voltage


    Apparatus diagrams

    From presumably the provisional patent application (not accessible), as pictured on Infinite-Energy on issue #13-#14. The diagram on the actual (abandoned) patent application is better crafted and clearer.



    From OPERATING THE LENT-1 TRANSMUTATION REACTOR: A PRELIMINARY REPORT by Hal Fox and Shang-Xian Jin:



    Comments

    • Both electrodes are defined oxidizing.
      • My interpretation of this is that the authors mean that they can form stable oxides, and zirconium is one such metal.
    • When DC is used, I believe that the outer electrode, being larger, would more likely be the anode as it would get proportionally damaged less over time.
    • The "inert" electrolytes used may include include sodium silicate, sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3), or in alternative: lithium sulfate (Li2SO4), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and acetic acid (C2H4O2).
    • To me it seems that coupled with temperature they would made for a harsh corrosive environment that would promote the formation of suspended particles that would promote the occurrence of spark discharges when a current is passed through the electrodes.
      • This appears to be supported by anecdotal evidence and personal experience on somewhat similar experiments, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the patent application.


    Various links where the Cincinnati Group cell is mentioned

    In the context of the reviewing process I mentioned earlier, I collected some information on the electrolytic cell associated with the "Neal-Gleeson process" that was sometimes mentioned by Hal Fox relatively to Charge clusters / EVOs. Posting here too (from my notes) as this could be interesting or informative for others as well.


    * * *


    Between the mid 1990s and the early 2000s, Stan Gleeson (occasionally spelled Gleason) worked with the currently disbanded Cincinnati Group (a "religiously-inspired group of researchers" according to a source) on a high-pressure electrolytic cell for nuclear waste remediation, using light water and Zr or Ti electrodes. From the abandoned 2003 patent application the design seems simple enough to be adapted for atmospheric (open) operation with less hazardous elements.


    Operating characteristics were such that spark discharges occurred, as well as extensive electrode erosion. AC was typically used by the group, but DC could be as well. To be clear, this cell has been cited by Hal Fox and others in the context of Charge Clusters / EVOs as the "Neal-Gleeson process", with Neal being a co-author from the original Cincinnati group.


    "Old guard" cold fusion researchers do not seem to think that the cell worked as claimed: according to Jed Rothwell, who thinks that the initial measurements were crude, Michael McKubre suspected that cell seals were not good enough and thus that the inventors were breathing radioactive particles and that radioactivity was lost that way. Peter Gluck has written that in testing at ITIM (in Cluj, Romania) on a cell that was donated to him by Stan Gleeson it was shown that the radioactivity was transferred to the precipitate formed during operation and therefore that no global reduction in radioactivity was occurring.


    Inventor deaths

    Stan Gleeson died at age 48 in year 2000, together with the other inventor from the Cincinnati group Donald Holloman (also known as Don) in 2004 due to radiation-induced complications. Peter Gluck mentioned that they died of leukemia and that in their later period of activity they worked on experiments with Americium.


    Patent application

    US20030201167A1 - Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing means


    Patent application number: 10/128,292, 60/052,077 (provisional, not available)


    Abstract

    Quote

    A pressurized electrochemical bulk-process method & apparatus, adapted to real-time tracking and adjustment of electro-hydraulic parameters, comprising a high-pressure reaction chamber of the type of a horizontal cylindrical electrolytic cell, whose zirconium walls constitute one electrode in contact with an electrolytic solvent containing the target material to be processed. The other electrode is a thin vertical zirconium disk partially submerged in the electrolyte, which fills less than half of the chamber. Because the electrolyte's resistance is not constant, the current cannot be controlled merely by adjusting the voltage in the 60-cycle AC current; instead, the current amperage must be monitored in real time and the voltage either lowered in response to sharp amperage increases in order to keep the cell's temperature (and hence its pressure) below the safety limits at which the disk-shaped Teflon end-gaskets sealing the cylinder's ends will rupture, or else increased, during normal operation, to compensate for decreases in current caused by various reactions occurring in the electrolyte.


    Summary

    • Zirconium electrodes
      • Titanium also suggested in the patent description
      • Cylinder walls as one electrode
      • Counterelectrode as a vertical disk (washer) partially immersed in the electrolyte
    • 60 Hz AC current used (typically)
      • 40-200V, 0-10A
    • Operating temperature 15-150 °C
    • Electrolyte resistance not constant
    • Sharp current increases possible (i.e. spark discharges)
    • Control through current (amperage), not voltage


    Apparatus diagrams

    From presumably the provisional patent application (not accessible), as pictured on Infinite-Energy on issue #13-#14. The diagram on the actual (abandoned) patent application is better crafted and clearer.



    From OPERATING THE LENT-1 TRANSMUTATION REACTOR: A PRELIMINARY REPORT by Hal Fox and Shang-Xian Jin:



    Comments

    • Both electrodes are defined oxidizing.
      • My interpretation of this is that the authors mean that they can form stable oxides, and zirconium is one such metal.
    • When DC is used, I believe that the outer electrode, being larger, would more likely be the anode as it would get proportionally damaged less over time.
    • The "inert" electrolytes used may include include sodium silicate, sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3), or in alternative: lithium sulfate (Li2SO4), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and acetic acid (C2H4O2).
    • To me it seems that coupled with temperature they would made for a harsh corrosive environment that would promote the formation of suspended particles that would promote the occurrence of spark discharges when a current is passed through the electrodes.
      • This appears to be supported by anecdotal evidence and personal experience on somewhat similar experiments, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the patent application.


    Various links where the Cincinnati Group cell is mentioned

    Electron clusters or EVO's may substitute for 'heavy electrons' or muons in forming ultra dense deuterium or hydrogen in the few microseconds preceding fusion. Strange radiation emitted from the reactor is probably a mix of beta, gamma, alpha, proton and neutron fusion products.


    Ultra-dense hydrogen might indeed be what Ken Shoulders would have considered hydrogen atoms-embedded EVOs, or more generally speaking hydrogen atoms with a special electron configuration. However, muons are not involved with their formation as they have a rather short lifetime, while both EVOs and ultra-dense hydrogen are supposed to be indefinitely stable as long as they are left undisturbed; they might be part of what is sometimes called "strange radiation", on the other hand.

    My view is that "strange radiation" is an umbrella term for the not easily characterized macroscopic emissions or effects arising when ion-embedding EVOs are destroyed or in the process of getting destroyed, and that more than one type (or stage) might have been called with this name.


    As long one or more such EVOs are kept still in place, no large effect happens and thus no strange radiation is normally observed. In systems like those with energetic spark discharges in light water (water explosion experiments), formation processes might essentially be in equilibrium with destruction processes, which means that they will not be easily distinguished from each other and that there would be limited or no possibility of accumulation.

    I also expect that in most LENR experiments where any excess heat is being produced strange radiation can be detected coming from the reactor. I wonder what signature these would make when striking an antenna?


    I think that continuous random emission of penetrating particles that at least to some extent ionize the matter they pass through will produce a broadband electrical disturbance. Under normal circumstances this might not be easily distinguishable from direct RF noise.



    If you get the reaction to a electromagnetic wave, you can see it on a weather radar.


    True. Local authorities might try getting your equipment confiscated and fine you for illegal broadcasting if your activity disrupts local ones enough.

    I was recently reviewing again some of Ken Shoulders' published documents and I thought it would be worth pointing out again what I think is probably the most important practical aspect of his work, even if it's kind of obvious for those who already know about it. From CHARGE CLUSTERS IN ACTION by Ken and Steve Shoulders (also see attached):


    Quote

    [...] One mystery that had to be resolved early on is the difference between a spark and an EV. It was found that there is none. A spark is simply the visible, ionized gas trail left by an EV, although in some sparks the EV is so weak that it is barely detectable in the trash surrounding it. Every spark made has an EV running out in front of it. In addition, the EV has electron feelers running ahead of it to tell it what to do.


    Also, from the late Hal Fox, who worked on devices for nuclear waste remediation using Shoulder's charge clusters / EVs / EVOs: http://www.padrak.com/ine/FB97_1.html


    Quote

    [...] If you are working with devices in which charge clusters are expected to be produced, the following procedure is suggested. Place a small transistor radio near the suspected cluster target. Tune to an AM (amplitude modulated) part of the radio band where there are no AM stations on the air. Turn up the volume and listen for "cracks" of static. When a charge cluster strikes it will emits sufficient electromagnetic energy to hear on such a radio. Remember that FM (frequency modulation) clips these bursts of EM radiation and that static discharges will not be heard on FM stations.


    And from this pdf of an article by Hal Fox hosted on Rexresearch (in reference to Shoulders' privately published book):


    Quote

    [...] Shoulders reported at least one experiment in which charge clusters were produced that measured about 50 microns in diameter. The resulting electromagnetic pulse (EMP) when the charge cluster impacted the anode caused the malfunction of some transistors in equipment unrelated to the experiment. Replication of results should be done in screen rooms or a Faraday cage to prevent damage to lab equipment.


    To summarize:

    • Every spark has an EV in front of it
      • (but please note that a continuous electric arc is not a spark)
    • When an EV strikes something else (e.g. the anode), an electromagnetic pulse is generated
    • The larger the EV, the stronger the electromagnetic pulse

    From this it follows—at least from what has been claimed so far—that experiments that can produce (unshielded) intense electromagnetic noise due to visible and invisible sparks / brief electric discharges will also produce a large amount of EV / charge clusters. Since it's very easy to perform such experiments also in the presence of large amounts of atoms (e.g. of hydrogen from dissociated water) that are supposed to be easily embedded into the charge clusters, then the problem becomes proper detection. Anomalous effects could be hiding behind the equipment-disrupting (not necessarily destructively) electromagnetic noise generated in the process.

    CWatters

    That's not very encouraging, as I hoped that a rough idea of a reasonably well-designed, cost-effective and non-invasive Faraday cage (actually in the form of a mesh or grid material) for general purposes could be had before engaging again into weeks–months of potentially inconclusive tests.


    In any case, below is a partial diagram of the supposed situation. For the most part this is just a hypothesis subject to change, at this stage.


    In general, similar problems will exist in most systems that concentrate a more or less large amount of electrical energy in a brief period of time on a small spot, like for example the various Russian "water explosion" experiments (including Parkhomov's "Woodpecker", from which mine could be considered to take a loose inspiration), or in other cases also without directly involving water or hydrogen (as for example here) or just with trace amounts of them in the electrodes. These have often been claimed to produce transmutation effects, excess heat or emit unknown difficult to detect and potentially harmful radiation sometimes informally called "strange radiation".


    Also performing electrolysis (or more precisely describing the actual processes involved: electrodeposition / electroplating) in a slightly acidic environment with closely spaced electrodes, but without them obviously arcing or entering a kind of resonating regime (as also observed in your tests), will produce continuous low-level detectable RF noise which I guess could be expected to cause a heightened signal in nearby sensitive conventional radiation monitoring devices.


    To a large extent this might end up being a matter of interpretation. As mentioned earlier it could even be that trying to get rid of related issues with proper grounding will also get rid of a possible signature of a real anomalous signal, so it could be important to know how to separate the direct RF noise from it.


    My initial idea was that a coarse metallic mesh either around the cell or the measuring equipment could do the RF-shielding job while still allowing most unknown particles (if present) to pass through without interference. The mesh would be grounded, but the measuring equipment wouldn't. Whether this would be considered an acceptable arrangement though, I don't know, which is what motivated my question above.

    More than low energy (i.e. low keV) radiation I meant low intensity, since the short-term variation of the background signal where the experiments used to be performed at my location varies on a typical day between 75 and 105 CPM with the SBM-20 Geiger tube—I've also measured this recently in a few short unlogged 10-minute tests. This would drown out small signals. It's difficult to imagine that with a more sensitive pancake-style tube CPM values could be 10 times larger.


    In replications performed last January-February (last test here) Magicsound used one very similar to what you linked, and in fact it was a slower low-voltage version of the same detector: https://www.lndinc.com/products/geiger-mueller-tubes/7317/ It was observed earlier on to be sensitive to RF emitted by the discharges that the experiment inherently created and it was somehow fixed along the way along with related issues with other detectors, but such sensitivity apparently remained on the neutron detectors and to a limited extent his NaI gamma spectrometer.


    It would be very easy to dismiss all of this as just the result of RF noise, but there's a possibility (albeit small) that high energy nuclear particles produced by the reaction could leave the surfaces they pass through charged either directly or by secondary emission, which could cause all sorts of apparent noise artifacts that might be difficult to separate from actual RF-induced noise without detailed analysis or different types of measurements. The problem remains of course proving it.

    On my side, just a regular portable AM radio that I've been using for real-time monitoring purposes for electrolytic experiments under atypical conditions—as you might recall from another forum thread. A NetIO GC10 Geiger counter with an SBM-20 GM tube has always been used close to the cell, but never showed anything interesting or clearly correlated with cell activity. On the other hand the background radiation level at my location is relatively high and I could have missed low-level gamma emissions.

    So, the idea is that if the cell is actually emitting something more than "regular" RF (as early comments in this thread appear to suggest) then it's possible that the radio could work as a more sensitive instrument for it, and that a reasonably well-constructed Faraday cage could highlight this.


    However, before turning again the desk next to my PC into a chemical lab I'd like to know in advance what to do to avoid goalpost-moving criticisms on this regard. I'm still not sure if it would be worth the time as I personally can/will only perform rather crude experiments with already-available tools and materials.


    Earlier this year Magicsound replicated the same cell/experiment and even significantly improved it on several aspects using the best equipment available in the open source LENR experimentation community, but it turned out (not unexpectedly) to produce significant RF emission that upon operation would apparently increase the signal from his sensitive detectors for neutron and gamma radiation. It was not possible at that time to discern whether it was a "true" signal or just noise.

    Plugging back to this old thread, does anybody have practical suggestions on how to shield either a reactor or instrumentation from RF in a manner that would prevent reasonable criticisms from pointing out that a positive signal could be due to related emissions leaking out/in?

    SS really so special according to your assumption?


    I'm not Johny5 but in retrospect the idea might have been using a nickel powder-filled stainless steel tube with hydrogen contained at an elevated pressure for obtaining a simple and efficient proton membrane to be concentrically mounted inside another tube acting as a "proper" reactor. Incidentally, similar ideas are described in this recent patent application that came out some time after his departure: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2019012120A1/


    Therein it's suggested that hydrogen atoms desorbing from the bulk have a higher energy from those desorbing from the surface (as in: that did not pass through the material). This would promote the formation of a large concentration of excited hydrogen atoms and subsequent condensed clusters supporting the generation of excess heat and nuclear reactions.


    Quote

    [...] In order to create Rydberg matter of hydrogen, it is preferable that it is bulk - and not surface - hydrogen atoms that desorb. Bulk hydrogen atoms traditionally have a significantly higher energy (about 25 kcal/mol when the primary material is Ni) as compared to that of a surface-bound hydrogen atom. See, e.g., ST. Ceyer, The unique chemistry of hydrogen beneath the surface: catalytic hydrogenation of hydrocarbons, Accounts of Chemical Research, 34(9)737-744, 2001. Generally, only the hydrogen species freshly emerging from the bulk of the primary material 14 will efficiently form Rydberg matter then condensed hydrogen clusters.

    Yes definitely, noting that you can also load other materials apart from metals.


    That's very interesting, although I must point out that I did really mean macroscopically, a possible example being foils or other small samples (not necessarily metallic as you mention) treated so that they are denser than osmium or iridium (the densest elements known).


    Beyond scientific research there could already be a market for cost-competitive superheavy materials, although I understand the limiting factor here would be the rate of production of such hydrogen form.

    THHuxleynew

    Try at least to read the latest published (and open access) review to check out what is the latest thinking on the subject by Holmlid's group:

    https://iopscience.iop.org/art…088/1402-4896/ab1276/meta


    From the references given there relatively to protium, it appears that the existence of UDH was already acknowledged ca. 2009 or about the same time as when Winterberg's theory (an independent effort from Holmlid) came out, so it's not clear what period you're referring to exactly. It's not been introduced recently.

    For what it's worth, in his latest publications Holmlid has often cited works by Mayer and Reitz, so the possible implications of his findings on geological processes are probably at least considered:

    Other openly accessible papers are available from Frederick Mayer's Researchgate page.


    Only loosely related, but I found this from the link above kind of amusing:


    I think they do acknowledge that (see excerpt attached, from the same 2009 paper cited earlier).


    I believe the point is that even though a large volume of continuous material formed of such dense atoms has not been observed yet—as he mentioned in his latest review paper—the density of the clusters is such that nuclear reactions within them can be far more easily induced compared to regular matter. I don't think the provided figure is intended to be a very accurate metric of its true density, and in more recent publications a general order of magnitude like ">100 kg cm-3" seems to be often used, perhaps in an effort to avoid giving this impression.