Posts by can

Paradigmnoia

That is probably the most high-res version available, as the iPhone it was taken with cannot shoot even higher resolution photos.

Alan Smith

From that, I ended up determining that a ready-made H-bridge circuit and perhaps an Arduino could be used for the task, although for just controlling the frequency a timer circuit might be sufficient. A few issues, though:

• Arduino (the Uno version at least) has a hard time reaching switching frequencies in the order of 100 KHz and for less than trivial programs this limit could be much lower;
• Such switching frequency could be too high for many H-Bridge circuits (or so I read);
• Most of the low cost ready-made H-Bridges I found on online stores look inadequate for sustained large currents and appear to lack relevant protection against faults (mainly short-circuits, possibly voltage spikes)

Alan Smith

Any suggestion for something that could be tweaked over a very wide AC frequency range, is economical and very fault tolerant? The 5V/12V DC switching power supply (intended for usage with computers) I have has been abused quite a lot and still works fine for my purposes. And if it breaks, I have several others ready to use or could easily get a new one.

DnG

I'm sorry, I'm out of ideas here. It would help to have a schematic or diagram of what you're trying to accomplish, but the above drawing is too cryptic for that.

axil

The iron oxide that is responsible for the catalytic activity and production of Rydberg matter/ultra-dense hydrogen in Holmlid's case is not hematite, but an unstable phase called Potassium Ferrite (KFeO2), which is formed at high temperature (as is well known in the petrochemical industry) in an oxidizing environment and/or under prolonged mild heating in a vacuum, and appears as black (can be mistaken for magnetite) or dark olive green when formed (according to the literature). A while back I dedicated a thread about it: How to properly treat potassium-iron oxide catalysts

However, since it's mainly useful due to its ability of donating electrons to the adsorbed atoms I guess one could argue that if there's already a presence of excess electrons (e.g. in an electrolytic environment) perhaps there's no need of such finicky phase.

This could be a starting point.

Source: Demonstration of the E-Cat QX - 24 November - Summary thread

It would also totally help to not take for granted that people know where is the Rossi-Gullstroem paper or want to go searching it:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05249.pdf

EDIT: or better yet (download the attached file).

Basically do you plan (among other things) dropping ignited thermite into water or some sort of electrolyte solution? Steam explosions might occur so beware. The rapid cooling might cause some of the molten material to become glassy, which could fracture into sharp pieces also violently.

Electrical charges tend to concentrate on sharp points, so I guess that interesting results might not be completely ruled out. Hard to tell for certain, though.

magicsound

I see, interesting. Here's a screenshot from the video showing the schematic.

In my case I am trying to use water on purpose to do something slightly different: to recombine oxygen and hydrogen ions almost as soon as they form and to take advantage of any effect from water cavitation occurring in such tight environment. So I thought that minimizing the electrode gap would be useful, but water would still need to be present in some form.

Besides more complex hypotheses of how this might be useful (e.g. Cardone-Carpinteri's piezonuclear reactions, LeClair's theories, etc), or bonus side-effects such as the formation of catalytic metal-oxides structures which could also help splitting water and/or hydrogen, A few days ago I came across a few papers and presentations by Moray B. King where he suggests that electrolyzers where electrode gap is minimal tend to be those where "overunity" effects occur, mainly due to cavitation (he has a hypothesis where the ZPE is involved):

• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2011.08.038 (open access)
• http://rexresearch.com/kingmb/MorayKing.pdf (see from about slides 95-100 and 156+ for a summary)
• Other presentations here: http://rexresearch.com/kingmb/ (might not all be related with the subject)

So, many possible phenomena could be occurring in this experiment type, even if it looks rather crude.

A possible point of concern is that if Cardone and/or LeClair are right, neutron production might also be occurring. This would cause activation of nearby materials, which is also why I wondered if the oddly elevated signal I'm getting is something that I caused with earlier testing.

I think your post raises more questions than those you've explicitly put, but perhaps useful general discussion might still occur.

How is obsidian-coated hematite formed in your case?

Attachment point of what exactly?

Host for what?

Links I happened to open before writing this comment:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_glass
• http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelso…asters/volcan%26magma.htm

In what is now becoming the standard occurrence, I will now proceed to report the null (or apparently null) tests for the day. As for Geiger readings, after weeks of steady periodic activity I'm apparently getting the opposite effects of what I was expecting despite having performed almost all the "best" tests I could do in the past couple days: the highest readings are getting lower while the lowest readings are (maybe) getting marginally higher.

Maybe it is truly just due to ambiental variations? Of course that would be the most likely explanation.

Yesterday's sharp spike occurred when for a test I moved the Geiger logging "cart" closer to the testing area.

Below are personal notes from today's testing, directly replicating the idea/device of the opening post of this thread. I keep repeating that these writings are from my personal notes because I want to stress that I've not specifically written them for LENR-Forum.

---

First testing round

Trying to replicate the first experiments I reported, which caused crackling noise emission from the cathode. They did not use electrodes immersed in water, but just water at the interface and an almost nonexisting electrode gap. They used to get very hot.

The basic procedure starts with the top electrode getting "dropped" on the anode. This allows for conduction to somehow ramp up gradually until a cushion composed of cavitating water, hydrogen and oxygen gases and steam prevents it from making direct contact with the bottom electrode and shorting out.

Since I need both hands to operate the device and that it needs constant adjusting, writing notes as the experiment proceeds will not be as easy as with other experiment types.

• <09:55> Starting to setup experiment
  • Magnet at the bottom of metal holder (a ferromagnetic wire stripper)
  • Anode (+) at the bottom
    • The initial idea behind this is that having the Cathode (-) at the top, the presumably active electrode, allowed for rapid inspection of the deposition layer formed
  • 5V will be applied
  • Gap will be formed by the oxide layer at the interface
    • Might take a while until it forms
  • Electrolyte will be used to add a temporary (soluble) low-conductivity barrier until proper conditions are set
• <10:05> Started with no electrolyte
  • Line voltage 5V
• <10:15> Red iron oxide layer forming on anode
• <10:23> Suddenly much easier to pass a current
  • AM radio noise also appeared
• <10:33> The process can be replicated
  • I keep the cathode moving or rotating slightly to avoid shorting as much as possible
• <10:40> Voltage drops down to 4.92V, then the electrodes eventually short
  • Water at the interface becomes foamy in the process
  • Electrodes become very difficult to separate, but apparently not (just?) because of welding
• <10:49> Experiment paused
  • Mostly the anode appears to have been affected
    • Its surface turned rusty red, but for the most part on the edges that had a shorter gap relatively to each other
      • Reason being that the center part of the electrodes got eroded over time due to various processes
  • No significant deposition observed on cathode, which is smooth and gray-black, seemingly oxide-free
    • No crackling noise heard nor expected because of this
  • This testing round was performed differently than past experiments

Figure 1: Ferritic steel washers as electrodes; top cathode, bottom anode. No electrolyte used.

Figure 2: The electrode interface. When it was first disassembled about 90 minutes earlier, the cathode did not look oxidized like this, but more gray-black looking.

Second testing round

I plan to add electrolyte powder to the coin, then water and start with 12V, then eventually switch to 5V. This would better replicate what I used to do prior to acquiring the Geiger counter with this experiment type.

• <12:30> Cathode appears slightly rusted too, upon disassembing
• <12:32> Added slight amounts of Na₂CO₃ electrolyte
• <12:36> Current appears at 5V to be more intense
  • Voltage dropped to about 4.5V
    • Note that voltage is used as a proxy for PSU load here
  • For this reason I haven't applied 12V as it would have meant immediate PSU shutdown
• <12:37> Anode became cleaned of the previously formed oxides, while the cathode became black

Figure 3: Electrodes after using a Na₂CO₃ electrolyte solution. After a while of operation, the anode got partially cleaned from its surface red iron oxide layer and the cathode became dark black from presumably partially oxidized iron (for the most part).

Figure 4: Electrodes after a longer period of operation using an electrolyte solution instead of just tap water.

• <12:43> Changed anode plate to a large coin
• <12:54> I'm having problems avoiding shorting the electrodes out
• <13:00> After a few unsuccessful tries I flipped coin to the other side, which is smoother due to lack of arc discharge craters formed in previous experiments
  • Also added electrolyte and water

Figure 5: New electrode arrangement using a 100 Lire coin (SS430) as the anode.

Figure 6: Conditions of electrodes at the interface after a period of operation. All red iron oxides got removed, cathode became dark black. This arrangement did not prove to be reliable due to the ruined anode surface from previous testing.

• <13:02> I find it's working much better now and that I can apply a current for much longer periods of time and at a higher level
• <13:05> Reaction steady but messy
  • Red iron oxide splatters all around
  • Bubbling also intense
• <13:10> At this point I find I only need to add water through the top opening to keep the reaction going
  • No particular noise from the AM radio is noticed throughout this latter part of the experiment
• <13:12> Experiment manually terminated due to rusty mess and no further change observed
  • In retrospect I could have tried adding an electrolyte solution instead of plain (tap) water to check out for changes in the residue layer formed

Figure 7: New arrangement with flipped coin after a while of operation. Rust production was intense and bubbling caused the top part to also become partially covered with it. Electrolyte was only minimally initially added.

Figure 8: Both electrodes at the interface. The anode has been cleaned and eroded by the presumably intense cavitating action and gas formation. Red iron oxide is not sticking to the cathode, but the previously formed black oxide (?) layer has remained.

Figure 9: Electrodes after cleaning in tap water. It's clear that the anode got eroded during the previous process. The cathode got an impression of the anode marking on its surface, and the red iron oxide did not stick.

Conclusions and observations for the day

• I could replicate the previous black coating finding once I added Na₂CO₃, but didn't reproduce the coarse coating which originally showed a crackling noise (due to embrittlement?)
  • Adding electrolyte appears to be important for this. Without it, red iron oxide that does not seem to stick to the cathode gets produced instead
• When conditions and materials are right, there's only need to add water to keep the process going
• I'm assuming that under steady state conditions the gap between both electrodes is minimal and that electrical conduction occurs mostly through the wet iron oxide layer
  • The cathode got a partial impression of the coin anode
• Red iron oxide production intense today
  • I've never witnessed this in prior testing
  • This is probably thanks to the favorable electrode configuration this time
  • The anode got visibly eroded in the process
  • Fe₂O₃ is often used as a dehydrogenation catalyst in petrochemical processes, even on its own
    • Having obtained it should be a good thing, in theory
  • That so much iron is getting oxidized at the temperatures involved should mean that it most of it is from the dissociated water rather than ambiental oxygen
    • This might imply that gas evolution is hydrogen-biased
• No clear changes in Geiger counts associated with the experiment have been observed
  • However the logging cart is still about 3 meters away from the testing area

Alan Smith

I think the idea was that the device would be located or directed inside (e.g. through a dedicated opening) the lead shielding.

EDIT: if I recall correctly, the implied narrative from the same person was that an initial version of the QX used to be a kind of "starter" device on its own that was used at some point in the process (I think the fat tubular E-Cats) and that eventually Rossi realized that its reaction could be improved to the point of successfully working as a stand-alone device.

All of this could have been completely made-up or just educated speculation, of course.

@JohnyFive

Is the device some sort of miniaturized X-ray generator? Years ago I've read suggestions elsewhere from a seemingly knowledgeable person that one could have been used as a "starter", and recently it's been accidentally (I'm guessing) suggested again in another discussion by others here on LENR-Forum. However people close to actual E-Cat testers maintain that no such device was ever used. Bottom line: if you too have or have had this sort of information at disposal, there's no guarantee that any of it is true.

As a side note, Holmlid in his old patent application suggested the usage of X-rays instead of a Nd:YAG pulsed laser to trigger the UDH he produces, so it would not be a completely ungrounded idea.

EDIT: a neutron generator (e.g. "neutristor"; this too I believe is produced by one or very few companies in the world) might serve a similar "starter" purpose as well.

Could plain TiH2 be passivated with a strong oxidizer while retaining a hydride core? The resulting outer oxide shell should be hard and impermeable to hydrogen.

Quote from JohnyFive

can - Just because Mr. Rossi was using it in his E-Cats for years. But first you have to have working reactor (dry cell) at least with COP 1+.

But as most people know, much of what Rossi does or says has at least some layers of misdirection. This does not just include what he writes on the JONP but also what he physically does around his reactors. Basically, what I'm saying is that unless you can demonstrate for yourself that the device does work as claimed, you cannot be sure that it will do what it's supposed to (or what you've been told it does), and because of this, you cannot blame Alan for believing that you're only putting forward a cheap bait.

@JohnyFive

How do you know it works if you cannot test it? If it doesn't, Alan Smith et al would be revealing their secrets for nothing.

Longview

I tried to reproduce closely what I did last time, so I used the same materials and procedure. The clips do corrode far too easily and their paint annoyingly flakes off during operation and I acknowledge that there certainly are more suitable ones that could be used for such tests.

A different construction where the electrodes could be bolted onto some sort of tunable structure rather than held together with pressure would be better, but I initially simply used what I could readily find at home to test the concept. Besides the Geiger counter I haven't specifically acquired anything yet for the sole purpose of these tests.

After trying to replicate the previous experiment (photo posted above) with a very similar procedure, I could kind of reproduce the porous appearance of the anode on the exposed (top) area, but I'm starting to suspect it's mostly a result that etching of the oxides in acid bath (10% HCl) is magnifying.

Photos below show the anode before and after etching.

Besides this, there's no particularly noteworthy oddity to report. I'd like to think that the odd jumpy behavior of Geiger counter readings today were due to the electrolysis testing, but there's no strong evidence of that. The red dashed line in the image in the zoomed up view (first graph) is when AM radio noise started appearing and kept varying up and down throughout the rest of the test. I had began applying power to the electrode assembly about 12 minutes earlier.

EDIT: added notes

Quote from Rossi quoted by Shane D.

Background 0.05-0.07 microSv/h, operation 0.12-0.16 microSv/h at 1 cm of distance.

0.05 µSv/h seems an unusually low background reading or at least that's what I thought when I saw these figures.

By the way, here are some close-up photos of the anode that in a previously described test/experiment that I thought had some "craters" formed in the process on the exposed surface. More than craters it looks like material is missing: these look like relatively deep holes. The surface appears pitted, although this could be the result of cleaning in HCl bath. The larger holes occurred (or so I thought) on areas that were not covered by insulating tape during the previous "unconventional" electrolysis test.

CWatters

Thanks for the interesting references (other ones are also linked in the second paper but I haven't checked them out yet).

The first researcher is located in Switzerland and is measuring these variations from his building in a low background radiation area, the group from the other paper is in located Greece, apparently in an area where Radon emissions could be a problem. It's not clear (to me at least) if in the latter case they're performing measurements on a outdoor location or inside a building.

My measurements are performed indoors on a corner of a room which has relatively stable temperature and humidity level. Opening or closing the window does not appear to affect appreciably the readings. Also, the testing location is not in a basement, but on the first/upper floor of a single-detached home. So I was not led to believe this is due to Radon in the environment, unless other processes are involved (possibly traveling from the soil to the inside of the the walls?).

The variation in gamma radiation in the first case is small (roughly 15.7-16.4 uR/Hr in one of the averaged graphs presented. The maximum value is about 4.5% higher than the minimum), and a bit more than this (1.14-1.25 x1E3 CPM, less than 10% increase) in the second case.

In the current location in my case 30-minute average gamma radiation values can swing in a day from 70 to 95 CPM, for roughly a 35% daily increase. I'm not sure how sensitive my counter is to Alpha radiation, but a test I did several days ago seemed to show that most of this daily variation is not due to Alpha radiation.

On the same subject bocjin linked in another thread this paper where they link heightened emission with low humidity and high temperature conditions: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.10.011 (the original authors - from Israel - apparently linked them with solar neutrino emissions).

I will try to pay attention to environmental conditions over the coming weeks, but if there is any suggestion for minimizing any variation from them, short of moving into a climate-controlled area, I will also try to follow that.

On a slightly related note, it seems that today I had the highest peak values over the past days, but it's neither a particularly warm nor dry day. However to be fair the difference is not very large.

A brief update, sparing the forum from another long series of copy-pasted experimental notes people might not be interested about.

Since I have a vague suspicion that some experiment types might be causing an increase of the background radiation level, in the past few days I tried partially reproducing some of those I did in the weeks prior to acquiring a Geiger counter to see if anything unusual can be observed.

Sometimes there are oddly coincidental increases following some changes, but it's difficult to tell whether they are real or not. What I did so far in general:

• 2018-11-12 : the "unconventional electrolysis" test I previously described
• 2018-11-13 : contact arc discharge tests with metal pieces and water traces, in air
• 2018-11-14 : immersed all previously coated or treated pieces in heated H3PO4
• 2018-11-15 : tried cleaning the phosphate layer formed on many of the pieces with standard electrolysis (first) and then HCl bath

Today there was a strange short-term increase when I increased electrolysis voltage in the morning, but that could not be reproduced. Might have been coincidental.

The day when I performed contact arc discharge tests in the morning seems to have been the one which showed the "fattest" periodic increase later on. Again, possibly coincidental.

In general I've had the impression that the initial phosphoric acid bath "ruined" something, but that could be wishful thinking and the daily changes essentially be of random nature.

Mystery still remains about this daily signal regardless of personal hypotheses.

Some photos randomly taken over the course of the past days attached. I'm aware they're showing unprofessionally performed experiments.

After checking out again if anything interesting occurs with arc discharges under various configurations I will revert to testing more of the deliberately unfruitful ("unconventional") electrolysis of this thread.