I had a lower grade of those scouring pads laying around and couldn't help trying out if a larger spacing would work better under my conditions where the power supply system just isn't capable enough. I didn't put them all over the electrode surface, but only as tiny strips of insulating spacers, leaving an empty space between both electrodes. After compressing them they become quite dense. After some time I added a tiny drop of HCl to increase solution conductivity since it seemed to be progressing rather slowly, the reaction increased exponentially.

The sparks on the exposed area occurred later in the process, but the hissing noise and vibrations started earlier. This is roughly what I observed early with a narrower gap, only apparently stronger this time.

Unfortunately the solution is so dark that it's impossible to tell what's going on there, but I think the same is occurring below as it is above the water level. I turned it off after it seemed to start becoming too energetic and a bit dangerous with the foaming occurring there. The noise was coming from the jar itself, it's not just the radio.

https://streamable.com/3vzp4

https://streamable.com/gvvb5

Wyttenbach

Since a large current is being passed (at least several amperes, although it could transiently be much higher if I add a few large capacitors), a relatively large inductor is (or can be) present in the circuit, wouldn't the collapsing magnetic field from the repeatedly formed and suddenly destroyed conduction paths at the electrode interface locally produce potentially large voltages? Of course the main disadvantage is that these wouldn't be easily controllable, but given enough running time perhaps ideal ones could be generated under the right conditions.

Alan Smith

Do you mean something like this?

Actually I was looking at insulating spacers in the order of 0.1-0.2mm of thickness. The mica ones I was thinking of getting (they're not expensive, I just don't like purchasing things unnecessarily) were 0.09mm thick.

It's indeed possible that Fe3O4 is a large fraction of the particles produced, but since they seem to be rather conductive and to come mainly from the electrode interface where equally active hydrogen is being produced, I thought it might not necessarily be the case. I haven't tried to isolate them yet, or at least the fraction that gets attracted through the jar to the hard disk neodymium magnets.

Earlier today I tried swapping the electrodes (usually I use always the same ones as anode/cathode) to check out exactly how quickly the anode gets eroded in the process. It appears that it occurs very quickly. I haven't even added more HCl, just used the previously formed solution (probably very diluted FeCl3) which should be slightly acidic but not normally corrosive at this concentration.

I also added the previously made inductor in series with the circuit, but not with the jar within it. Instead I placed various ferromagnetic pieces on its center to increase its inductance. The main reason for this was to improve reliability as short transients would in this way hopefully be less likely to draw too much current from the power supply at once.

It appears to have partially worked in that I was able to sustain a current at 12V longer. In the process quite curiously the jar itself would emit screeching noises (both physically and through the AM radio) which I'm assuming were from cavitation and/or arc discharges that were more likely to be maintained longer. From the vibrations that could be felt through the tabletop I think it might have been cavitation. Do the photos show cavitation damage on the cathode or just plain anode erosion?

Interestingly, but not so unexpectedly, the area where tape was applied in order to increase spacing didn't get eroded at all.

To improve the process further I might have to add a few big capacitors in the circuit in order to deliver larger amounts of current during the various short-circuit events and further improve reliability.

The process appears to produce overall particles so fine that to a large extent (a chunk does) they cannot be all collected with a magnet and leave the solution pitch black . However I can't rule out that they are due to something else, like for example residues from the electrical tape.

I was thinking of using thin mica spacers normally used for electrically insulating MOSFETs from their heat sinks, which shouldn't easily break down with heat, although perhaps better options exist, also for keeping the entire assembly together with minimal costs and tools required.

There are reports of neutron emission from the cavitation of FeCl3 solutions so I'm moderately optimistic that once the bugs are solved perhaps something might be able to be observed even with the Geiger counter at my disposal. However this might end up requiring better/different detection methods than what I'm using at the moment.

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-342/aflb342m669.pdf

(The authors observed an increased neutron background, but not gamma emission)

I confirm I got the data from the URL above (actual link) and also uploaded a version without empty lines and interpolated missing values, for everybody's convenience.

Quote

[...] I also attached the full data with the holes filled with interpolated values.

This is my attempt at transcribing the notes

LION Test Run

ALAN Made 3 Test Blocks at L.F.H ONE for Himself. ONE for MFMP-Alan in America has one. ONE was sent to LION.

My recollection is that they were all calibrated to 1°C accuracy. Alan in America would have done his own thorough calibration run, so both his and Alan's can be relied upon to be believable to sceptics and therefore as a guide to the general characteristics of THIS block.

When I received the Block from (ALAN LFH) I put a X on the top so to identify it easily from my own several LFH Blocks.

The Block has not been ran till the day of this test so the glass tubes & coils are in the same condition as when not run by ALAN. The following short calibration is not to test or corroborate ALAN's own test results since I unconditionally accept what he has recorded-stored as data and reported.

The sole purpose of this calibration is to establish for myself the various PID temperatures, attained when the DIAL of the rheostat/pulser is set to a specific N° on the DIAL.

When I received it, there was N° dial just the Block knob with its blue line indicator so I made my own. The DIAL is held in Place by locking nut and so is immobilized, it has [????] been superglued. It is this certainty that it can not move that make it possible to accurately and with certainty set a position 1, 63-5 or whatever and therefore know the max current & temp at any setting precisely.

You will see why clarity on this point is so important, later during the Main Test.

• The PID thermocouple is connected to the RH Pot containing the Diamond Pads + D2 wrapped in Stainless Steel.
  • T1 = [oo]-TI oo TI = Front Drilled port (Top o)
  • T2 = is from LH Port at the Recv

[Photo]

All of the equipment used was from LFH.

The PSU is a S-400-36 Input is 240-V-_AC_ at 4 Amps 36V to 11 AMPS D.C. Output.

• The PSU with N° LFH Block connected:
  • Draws 10.1 Watts AC falling to 8.5 watts at switch on. This is probably down to the PSU cooling Fan.
• For my own Measurement purposes I bought and installed a ACM20
  • see (attached) from [RS]-Components. Which was between switches & PSU.
• DATA Card was provided by ALAN-MARTIN. This New card was used for this test.

Calibration Run.

Sunday November 4th 2018

Start Time - Approx 6.25 pm.

1. DIAL set to 1
   • Reactor Run empty is N° Tubes in Place
   • Just Thermocouples
   • ACM20 = 13.7 Watts.
   • Ambient 24.5 in EX Room.
   • PID Reachers = 33°C
2. At 7:30 PM
   • DIAL set to 2.
   • ACM20 = 8.28 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 111°C
3. At 8:30 PM
   • DIAL set to 3
   • ACM20 = 127.3 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 233°C
4. At 9:30 PM
   • DIAL set to 4.
   • ACM20 = 206 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 387°C
5. At 10:30 PM
   • DIAL set to 5
   • ACM20 = 269 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 506°C
6. At 11:30 PM (ish?!)
   • DIAL set to 6
   • ACM20 = 337 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 652°C
7. At 12:55 (seems I fell asleep) P.T.O.
   • DIAL set to 7
   • ACM20 = 424.5 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 788°C
8. At 2 AM (snoring again)
   • DIAL set to Max (7.7 opex)
   • ACM20 = 462.8 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 831°C
   • Ambient 27.9 in EX Room

Before shutting Down I place a S-Type Platinium Rhodium Thermocouple in the LHS Port it reads a temp of 1050°C - 831 = 219°C

Remember in this test as in the Main Run there are Short Thermocouples in a case so barely the Tip is in the Thermowell. But as yet N° ceramic wool has been added. The Tips are Naked and yet there is a 219°C difference LESS than the True Temperature.

When the Wad of ceramic Wool is added in the Main Test Run to protect the thermocouples from (ss) so I can at least gather Data the (False) Temperature from the Real or True Temperature will be even greater. This is of course very significant and a must be bourne in mind when estimating energy in versus energy out Though thankfully there are other clear indications.

Energy-in of course is known.

Main Test Run

Wednesday November 7th 2018

• LHP + RHP Thermos are short 5cm
• ceramic Wool (Bob will find on take Down)
• LION Tubes
• Inside
  • LHP = Tube = D2 Pads + Silver (leaf)
  • RHP = Tube = D2 Pads + Stainless Steel
• Outside
  • LHP = Tube x7 Windings of Cu Foil + ogivei
  • LHP = Tube x7 Windings of Cu Foil + Ifgubie
• PID Thermocouple is connected to Back RH Post Stainless Steel
• TI = Thermocouple is from Front New Hole Top o
• Tg = is connected to LH Post at rear-side-Tube

Test Started at 11.15 pm.

1. At 11.15 P.M (Wed 7.1.2018)
   • DIAL set to 1
   • ACM20 = 14.2 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 32°C
   • Ambient is 25 in EX Room
   • Also a 1.4 setting
2. 5.00 Am Thursday Morning
   • DIAL set to 2
   • ACM20 =
   • PID Reaches = 37°C
   • Also a 2.1 set
   • 2.3 set
   • 2.5 set
   • 2.7 set
3. 12:30 PM Thursday Night.
   • DIAL Set to 3
   • Also a 3.5 set
   • ACM20 = 161 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 295°C
4. Friday 5 PM
   • DIAL set to 4
   • ACM20 = 170 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 410°C
   • Also a 4.5 set
5. Saturday 11.15 am
   • DIAL set to 5
   • ACM20 = 193 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 450°C
   • Also a 5.5 set
6. Saturday 7.28 PM
   • DIAL set to 6
   • ACM20 = 343 Watts
   • PID Reaches = 594°C
   • Also a 6.5 set
7. Sunday 8PM
   • DIAL set to 7
   • ACM20 = 420 Watts
   • PID Reaches 700°C
   • Ambient 27.5 + increasing in EX Room. See SD card for Details

Start of Thermal Shock Process

DIAL Turned back down to (6)

Temp falls to 491-592°C

ACM20 = 334.8 Watts.

• N° Pulsing-steady state
• Watts = 332.7
• Tuesday
  • 1.39pm PID up 597°C-598°C
• Wednesday
  • 2.53am PID steady at 598°C
• Watts = 331.9
  • up +6°C from first Thermal Shock

Wednesday 7.30pm

Put DIAL back up to 7.7 from 6

This turned out to be a serious error

Clearly it should have been raised slowly until the New Fire is stable it is very easy to Put it out. Patience is Required to Kindle this FIRE.

At about 8.30 something broke.

1. Screeching sound
2. Arks and Sparks
3. Sparkler sound for approx 30 seconds

At 10.45 PM PID Temp still at 60°C so over 24 hours for cool down.

• Slow, careful Multi Tube approach

NEXT.-AIM = PULL the Plug Out. Keep it Simple.

With PATIENCE I believe that this is a doable project.

Simple liste for Like comparison NOT allowing for a correcting False Temp due to Set up.

To the best of my understanding below is what I think occurs, after some more testing.

As soon as even traces of HCl are introduced in the aqueous solution, the anode starts corroding quickly, likely more on the zones of highest current density, making the solution black very quickly (in the case of Fe, at least) from very fine metallic particulate (quite difficult to clean if it gets into anywhere porous). The deposition rate on the cathode increases significantly at the same time.

This allows for interesting effects. That material deposition increases to a very quick pace also means that sooner or later short-conduction paths will form between both electrodes if the gap is short enough (also at substantial fractions of a millimeter). If the power supply system is up to the task, these short conduction paths will turn the material into plasma and destroy the previously formed path.

In the early phases these short-circuit events transiently occur on multiple spots. From the AM radio I use to monitor the reaction I think this can be heard as a broadband noise event which can turn into a constant white noise stream after a while. However, later on depending on the conditions at the electrode can develop into a sort of welding rod effect and be difficult to recover from. When this happens the broadband radio noise stops as well.

The cathode wears up negligibly in the process, while the anode sees most of the damage.

This interesting effect could potentially be taken advantage of to obtain a sort of electrolytically-induced dusty plasma reaction. Locally the temperature would be very high (up to thousands of degrees), even if overall the environment would be within typical electrolytic temperatures.

During a short-circuit event electrolysis stops, of course.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any large change in Geiger readings that could be clearly associated with the experiment. The segmented red lines below show when:

1. I powered up electrolysis at 12V and distilled water (leaving the cell for the most part unattended at low load)
2. I added a few traces of HCl
3. I ended the experiment

Is there a source for the QX being gas tight? I recall Alan Smith mentioned that one of the testers told him that earlier E-Cat variations were loaded without much regard for either making a good seal or avoiding humidity/water to come in.

1. MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH
2. The possible Role of Axions in LENR

For what's worth, BLP devices operate around or above atmospheric pressure and even under a standard atmosphere (the seam welder tests I previously mentioned). Air contains 1% Argon, by the way.

Bruce__H

Thanks for the detailed explanation; unfortunately it appears to be less straightforward to do than I initially assumed so I'll have to pass on this one given that it might also not lead to a significantly better understanding of the results.

Depending on the electrolyte solution and the conditions of the electrode gap interesting reactions can occur. Thinking that a slightly acidic solution would promote rust/hematite formation I used 25 ml distilled water and literally one drop (roughly 0.06g) of 10% HCl. This made electrolysis and deposition occur differently than usual, making the solution turn black (probably due to iron chloride formation), the small gap to fill and a kind of "welding" reaction to occur as soon as the gap became wetted again. Next time I should probably try adding the same small drop of HCl only after an initial rust layer has formed (which it will eventually do with just distilled water).

https://streamable.com/wvc9h

Unfortunately still no increase in Geiger readings observed (again, if anything they appear to decrease).

@Stephen_C

Bruce__H

I'm not sure I understood what I should do with the snippets but check if the data attached corresponds to them.

aggregate-10s.zip

Alan Smith

A close-up view does indeed show that the on-off action is regular and not occurring at a very fast rate. Still, there's something strange with the actual values.

So what I've been doing? Yesterday I prepared a 75 turns, 4cm height, 5cm radius coil (and roughly 1.1~1.2 Ohm) with an inner diameter about as large as the jar I've been using so far, using regular thick insulated electrical wire.

Since the electrodes are mildly ferromagnetic they will act as a magnetic core and concentrate the magnetic field generated by the coil. A current (under stabilized conditions) of about 3A when 12V is applied is enough to cause the jar to visibly shake. I've made a video today but unfortunately it's shaky and it might look as if I was moving the jar with my hands.

https://streamable.com/3x47s

According to this calculator the magnetic B-field for a relative magnetic permeability of 10 should be 0.07T. I think the magnetic permeability might be higher, or perhaps current is higher than I'm assuming.

I haven't observed any increase in Geiger counts while doing this, but on the other hand they coincidentally decreased once today I increased electrolyte conductivity and started applying a significantly higher current than I've been since yesterday. Only problem, in my case such reduction even though noticeable is within the very wide error margins for my Geiger readings in general. Also it's probably a coincidence since generally I get the lowest readings of the day at about that hour (rightmost dashed line) due to the periodic signal I am getting (which is lower than it previously was in the current Geiger counter location).

At the moment the jar is not operating / is turned off.

StephenC

So far the only way to consistently induce my Geiger counter a change in behavior is by adding/removing shielding or moving it into a different location (also within the same room).

I've had a periodic signal, but that would occur on a 24h basis. Until a few days ago I've ran the GC a few meters away from the testing equipment, however. I don't know what LION is using. Other counters might be more sensitive to temperature, EM interference (what's going on with power measurements there?), etc.

Why did the data have to be sent to BG by regular mail before uploading it on the Internet and risking to lose it forever?

...

Anyway, from the source here, I made some graphs. I haven't attempted making sense of the strange input power values yet.

000

002

003

I also attached the full data with the holes filled with interpolated values.

For the record, I repeated the test after cleaning the electrodes in diluted HCl and using a new electrolyte solution (2M KOH), but couldn't obtain the same results as yesterday. No thick layer was formed between the electrodes and very limited erosion occurred.

Details and photos in the spoiler tag.

JedRothwell

Try looking for A. Carpinteri et al. Some examples:

http://staff.polito.it/alberto…n%20Carpinteri%202012.pdf

http://staff.polito.it/alberto…ERI_2011_N.643_STRAIN.pdf

EDIT: many others here:

http://staff.polito.it/alberto…iezonuclear_reactions.htm

http://staff.polito.it/alberto…20reactions%20conference/

magicsound

The electrolyte was indeed (ended up being) roughly 0.5M KOH + undefined amounts of K2CO3 (about 1/4 volume in 0.50-0.75mm granules of that 25ml jar). I could try again with a better defined (and new) electrolyte solution.

Before starting yesterday's tests I sanded off the remaining yellowish surface layer that didn't get removed the day earlier during electrolysis. It was not difficult to remove with 100-grit sandpaper; it must have been only microns-thick. Such layer made also more difficult to pass a current through the exposed portions of the metal pieces, so I figured that it was some kind of anodizing finish. More suitable technical terms for that probably exist.

The surfaces in the above photo have been intentionally left rough, which I thought would promote the formation of cavitation bubbles. I recall reading about this on a presentation by Moray B. King on water electrolyzers (here on page 105+).

After the test a significant amount of solid strongly ferromagnetic particles that would be easily attracted with a magnet were produced. In the photo below the magnet appeared to be picking also a lower amount of ferromagnetic iron oxides. I believe the ferromagnetic particles come from cavitation erosion.

Unlike other pieces of metal I have around the electrodes do not seem to easily rust after being put drying in a warm place, so the base alloy is probably still some kind of stainless steel.

During testing I found that magnet application would have some sort of effect on gas evolution. Sometimes it would get higher, even during off-power conditions. Upon closer inspection it appeared it promoted the formation of spikes on the cathode.

The rectangular piece on the right of the above photo is the bottom insulator which came off during operation. It looks like once electrolysis and cavitation start occurring at the interface of both electrodes it's not really that necessary anymore.

How much of a "battery" effect should be expected from two stainless steel electrodes shaped and arranged as depicted in the previous post?

Today I found that after a period of operation the cell would continue producing gas for quite a while at a moderate rate. Although a video is no proof, I made a couple to show what I mean. The anode (left side) was not connected in both cases (I also tried later on to disconnect the cathode/- and it would be have the same). The second video was made a few minutes later; gas evolution was lower than in the first so the cell was discharging, somehow.

https://streamable.com/rox56 

https://streamable.com/heka6

(I'm aware that the videos are of rather poor quality and the environment is messy)

EDIT: to be fair, a possible skeptical explanation could be that it was outgassing previously electrolytically absorbed hydrogen rather than dissociating water.

zorud

You won't obviously create an industrial product out of Home Depot-acquired parts, but it's not that many other cold fusion experiments from countless other authors have a higher level of sophistication. Randell Mills of BLP used a (modified?) spot welding machine in some demonstrations, by the way.

Lou Pagnucco

Many works on cavitation on solids and liquids by other authors could be included in that case, which on a closer look the author does a good job referencing and summarizing in the first paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01837).