Stevenson Verified User
  • Member since Feb 6th 2021
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Stevenson

    A simple but seeming absurd explanation of LEC is salty gas. That is the gas phase contains a small amount of electrolyte. Then, to made a electric cell one could use redox potential as suggested by Alan.

    I made a brief test on this (it actually was for testing effect of high humidity): I wetted a bit the WE with water first, and then with diluted HCl. Result: no effect on the "dead" LEC, it didn't resurrected (no voltage, no current). Apart from this, Frank also made some test at -55°C, to exclude the effect of humidity.

    Looking at redox potentials shows Al as electronegative and Cu as positive. This may suggest other metal pairs?

    I had some difficulty in figuring out how these potentials would be applied in the case of LEC, since they imply that the metals are dissolved in the acqueous solution as ions (and viceversa).

    Mg and Ag may be other two interesting candidates, but this may require to change the geometry, since it may be difficult to find these metals the right form factor (6 mm OD tubes, 5 mm ID).

    I would be interested in the material specifications of the 0-rings and the epoxy.

    In my device I made the spacers with rubber. The end seal (the "non permanent" one) is made of the same rubber covered with PTFE. The permanent end seal is made of the same metal of the CE, just sealed with epoxy (it is quite distant from the WE in any case). Of course I verified the conductivity of the rubber before using it.

    A way to exclude current creping via assumed infinite isolation is to measure resistance between CE and WE

    I never assumed anything, I measured it! ^^ The measurements I made on the control devices were aimed at verifying things like these. As you can read in the spefic post, I tested the conductivity on non-plated devices with same and different metals for CE and WE, with air and hydrogen and different pressures, and I also re-tested the plated LEC after it "died". Almost zero conductivity in all the cases, even with 60V applied. For this reason I was really striked when I saw more than 0.1 mA passing through the active LEC with only 10V applied! This current decreased the day after, as the voltage did, so there is a correlation with the degree of activity of the device (whatever it is).

    Can you quote the references of your assertion “This is not the case: the current is quite simmetrical with equal saturation in both directions.” ?

    See post #193, the "current measurements" paragraph. In the same post you can also find the voltage measurements (showing polarity). You can notice that by changing the counter electrode metal also the polarity changes (this was observed with aluminium). This, in my opinion, is a good indication that the voltage generation is a second order effect, due to the fact that the gas is actually ionized (both charges present in equal amount) and behaves quite like an electrolyte.

    In the Entenmann patent, the hydrided electrode became the positive pole of the generator for months.

    I have to read the Entenmann patent, I don't know if the involved phenomena are the same.

    This is basically the “potato” or “lemon” battery, two metals on an aqueous solution

    Corrosion reactions have slighty different mechanisms compared to normal batteries (that are based on standard redox electrode potentials), in fact voltages are usually lower.

    The important thing is balance, as in all things: we must make new discoveries, we must not throw down the whole edifice of physics:

    I know. In fact I started by reading "Conduction of electricity through gases" by J.J Thomson. This book is really wonderful: it describes all the invonved phenomena and cases, with very clever experiments and methods. You will find in it concept and ideas that have became reality many years after its publication. Thomson measured the conductivity generated by heated metals, by flames, by photoelectricity, by radioactive material, and so on. It also gives many hints on how to investigate this phenomenon.

    BTW, he measured ionization produces by hot metals with a simple quadrant electrometer: no need for amplification... :)

    The H2+ ion diffuses through the gas up to the copper tube to neutralize itself, and the electrons pass through the electrical circuit. (picture 2)

    By reading Thomson, I know this cannot be the mechanisms at play on the LEC, because if you have just one polarity ions emitted by an electrode, your device would behave as a diode (the current would pass in just one direction). This is not the case: the current is quite simmetrical with equal saturation in both directions. This means that there is the same amount of positive and negative ions in the gas. Your hypothesis may be valid if the H2+ ions have sufficient energy to ionise the gas (so they are not the current carrier, but just the ionizing agent). This is also in good agreement with the down-convertion theory.

    Open question: Is there a plating thickness range where electricity is generated? Outside that thickness range no electricity?

    Sorry, no experimental data to answer your question.

    Another thought related to plating is that hydrogen is formed at the plated electrode (cathode) when electroplating is applied in a H2O solution. This could cause hydrogen storage within the plated metal, which could be the fuel even if a LEC is filled with normal air. To confirm, a freshly plated WE should be degassed (e.g. by heating) before applying it within a LEC setup, to see whether electricity is still generated with a degassed WE or not.

    Yes, Frank always talked about co-deposition, meaning that H is co-deposited with the metal. Probably if all hydrogen is desorbed there will be no activity. So probably it is the "fuel", but we still don't know what is the mechanism of action: it is just expelled with high energy ionizing the gas? Or it acts in some other way producting another kind of radiation? This latter hypothesis may seem a bit exotic, but there are many reference in the literature to these kind of phenomena (Rout-Srinivasan, Storms, etc.), that are clearly not related to the expulsion of adsorbed hydrogen.

    Tests on corrosion potentials done. These are the results, by using a 3.5% NaCl solution with different metal paris (the sign between parentheses indicates the multimeter probe, + being the postitive one):

    Fe (+) and Brass (-) => -188 mV

    Fe (+) and Cu (-) => -240 mV

    Fe (+) and Al (-) => +285 mV

    Fe (+) and Graphite (-) => -160 mV

    I also tested this combination, representative of the non plated WE (in the control device however, no voltage was measured):

    Brass (+) and Cu (-) => 40 mV

    Brass (+) and Al (-) => -440 mV

    Brass (+) and Brass (-) => 0 mV

    To avoid confusion: these tests were done with a beaker cointaining the solution, by using metal rods, no LEC involved at all ("no LEC were harmed in making these tests"... :D ).

    These results are quite interesting, because the voltage levels are comparable to the ones obtained with the LEC, and there is the same polarity inversion observen when the aluminium electrode was used.

    This may explain the origin of the voltage, but not the origin of the ionization.

    I looked back in this thread and noticed that Stevenson reported no voltage present in post #155 when applying different metals for his CE. Am I understanding correctly that in that case the WE was not yet codeposited?

    Correct. Devices tested in post #155 were the control devices: different metals tested, but no plating. The result was no voltage and no current.

    If it appears that a thin codeposited layer is key in getting a LEC to produce electricity it would be interesting to know how thick a codeposited layer should be to perform best.

    Yes, the only difference between control devices and active device was the plating. So it is the plating process that allow the effect. And I'm specifically sayng "the plating process", not the plated metal, because the presence of a Fe layer per se is not sufficient to activate the effect. I verified this with the now "dead" LEC: it has a (slighty oxidized) Fe plating layer but it do not generate voltage and current anymore, even scratching some of the superficial oxide. BTW, the plating thickness is very small: approximately less than 10 um.

    Alan Smith, I read the article you linked: it is interesting but it seems to describe a different (unrelated?) phenomenon. They obtained a charge accumulation, but not a current. In fact they used an electrometer to measure it. After reading the paper, I tryed to wet a little bit the WE of the "dead" LEC: still no voltage and no current. So the presence of the Fe layer (partly oxidized, but some in good condition) and humidity are not sufficient to trigger the effect. I'm now testing the corrotion potentials with the different metals. I will report the results later...

    Simply infrared will never been included in your software ?

    Ionization energy of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen and other common gases id in the range of 10 to 20 eV and 1000s kJ/mol, so IR do not fit well, in my opinion (otherwise the intensity would be very high, and this would be easily detected as heat).

    You might find this paper interesting, looking at different metal combinations (as 'air electrodes') abnd the effect of relative humidity on voltage generation. While I am not suggesting that you have a water vapour effect at all I think the choice of metal pairs here may be of interest.

    Thank you! This paper seems very interesting. I will carefully read it tomorrow.

    If you have time, and consider it interesting, perhaps a semi-metal like graphite would be worth testing.

    Yes, I will. BTW, when I was a little kid playing with voltaic cells (batteries), the most powerfull cell I built was with aluminium and graphite as electrodes! :D

    Just to confirm: the tests with the 3 different metals of the CE were done with an iron plated brass WE or without iron plating?

    Yes, the voltages and currents that i reported were obtained with the iron plating. Devices with no plating do not produce any voltage and current. But please note that the difference is not just the presence of iron, since also using a plain iron WE, without plating process, is not sufficient to generate a voltage and current.

    I agree with you: in the next experiment I will check again the inverion of polarity with aluminium. It may be relevant.

    @All: I would like to steer away for a moment your attention from the voltage generation and ask you to focus a little bit more on the other effet, the ionization of the gas, that is perhaps the most important and difficult to explain and study. Please le me know what do you think about these points:

    - Since the active device is able to sustain an almost simmetrical current, it means that the either positive and negative ions are present in the gas (otherwise the device would behave as a diode). Is this correnct?

    - These ions of both polarity can be 1) both emitted from the WE, 2) produced in the gas by a kind of radiation emitted from the WE. Is this correct, or there are other possibilities?

    - The WE may emit just one kind of ion (or charged particle), that has sufficient energy to ionise the gas, so producing positive and negative ions;

    - The other possibility is that the WE emits an electromagnetic radiation (UV, X-rays, etc.) that ionise the gas.

    Please suggest additional hypothesis to explain the gas ionization and some specific experiment to better study this phenomenon and to answer the above mentioned questions.

    Rob Woudenberg, WRT the open circuit voltages and short circuit currents that I posted, I have to say that the "Brass-Brass" data are really reliable, because were observed over a long time. The Brass-Aluminium and Brass-Copper tests lasted only few minutes, so these data may be somewhat underestimated (in absolute values), because the system may have not fully reached its equilibrium. However, the change in the sign of the voltage and current is evident and suggestive of something.

    From this point of view, the figure you posted is very interesting because it is in accordance with these observations if you consider that the internal electrode (WE) is made of brass but it is plated with Fe. From the figure, considering iron as reference, you get that brass and copper are more noble, while aluminium is less: this can explain the change in sign of the voltage. Do not consider the specific sign in the reported data, that depends on how the device was connected to the multimeter, but just the polarity inversion.

    I will make some test with a NaCl solution and different pair of metals, in order to make some comparison.

    Distance between electrodes is small though. Humidity may play an important role as well.

    The humidity was about the same of the control experiments, where the device was not able to conduct. Moreover Frank Gordon made some tests at -55°C, in order to rule out the effect of humidity.

    Thanks for clarifying that for others, I have understood this to be the important factor since the beginning, the voltage is a consequence of this ionization, and whatever is causing this ionization is the mistery of the LEC, not the voltage.

    Yes, I think this is the point.

    frankly sorry but your explanations deserve more clarity, more factual less drafted, please.

    Cydonia, please, read carefully what I wrote in the previous posts. You will find experiments and results, and you can draw your own conclusions. If some experiments are missing, no conclusion can be drawn, just hypothesis.

    Also consider to have a look at what is called 'corrosion potential'.

    Yes, the mechanism that generate the voltage is really something similar in my opinion. The monumental difference is that air (and hydrogen) almost do not conduct electricity in normal conditions. If you go back to the previous posts, I measured just tens of pA currents on the control devices, versus more than 0.1 mA @ 10 V in the active device: the gas has become pretty conductive! In the active device it may act as an electrolyte, so allowing electrochemical reactions or wathever generate the voltage. But the main question is: what made the gas so conductive?!?

    But I cannot see how a control experiment could disprove that the power is from outside sources.

    The point is not the excess power/energy: nobody is claiming it. The point is that the gas in the control device was not capable of conducting current (as expected by theory), while in the active the gas became conductive. Please, if you have any sound hypothesis on conventional phenomena allowing this, let us know. I'm ready to verify it experimentally.

    Regarding Stevenson, if I understood correctly he would have tried several different metals as Pd support but the outer tube remained in brass ? Is this correct ?

    Not exacly: the inner tube was brass, and it was plated with Fe only (no baking / annealing done). The default outer tube was also brass, but since my device was not permanently sealed, in one experiment I changed it with one made of aluminium and another made of copper, just to measure how the voltage and current were affected. It seems that this is the case in fact. This makes me think that voltage generation is due to some specific and "conventional" metallic potential (Volta, Galvani or work function). The ionization though, that is the "prime mover" of the device, seem to be independent from the metals.

    If this phenomenon is real , i should explain this simply by a similar experiment as Simon Brick done.

    He loaded SS plates by H2 then saw XSH when he put a Far IR light.

    Thanks for pointing out this: I will study it. But on a first glance it may be just related to difference in emissivity of the plates (that has different surface finish after the treatment).

    Gents, 'ionizing radiation' is in this case nothing more than mild plasma.

    Metals like platinum, palladium but also other elements are able to act as proton emitters by their catalytic characteristics towards hydrogen. Nothing exotic. That doesn't make it LENR, does it?

    Yes, it may! It depends on the energy and on the nature of the emitted radiation. Chemical and chemical-physical phenomena have an energy upper limit in the order of few tens of eV. We need to characterize the radiation before we can draw conclusions.

    Besides making sure the energy does not come from internal stored energy, I suggest you eliminate possible external energy sources.

    Robert, all the point you cite have been carefully checked. I spent about one month on analysing all these issues and for this reason I started with control experiments (you can find info on previous posts) with identical setup. This was also done in order to characterise noise level, instrumental sensitivity and the general behaviour of the "dummy" device. So artifacts can be definitively ruled out. Please compare the active and control results by yourself.

    I think we can conclude that additional tests are required to exclude conventional effects.

    I agree on additional tests. But I have I slighty lateral position on "conventinal effects": as I already wrote, I think that in the LEC there are two different effects taking place. One may actually be "conventional", and it is the one that generate the voltage, since it seems related to the employed metals (cfr. brass vs aluminium CE voltage and current). The other effect may be less conventional, and it is the one that ionizes the gas. The ionization of the gas is in my opinion the most striking phenomenon.

    In order to anticipate (or to answer) some of your questions, I can say that next experiments will be done with sealed devices with air, with hydrogen instead of air, and with nickel plating instead of iron. One of the aims is to run the LEC for longer time. This is not possible right now due to the rapid oxidation of iron.

    I also want to remember that there are many conventional ways of increasing the energy output of the device and to make it a useable energy source. It is only a matter of engineering. But the priority now is answering to more foundamental questions.

    To prove that extraordinary power is generated (LENR assumed) it's necessary to perform an energy measurement, not a short term power measurement. Total amount of continuously delivered energy should surpass any possible chemical energy. Only in such case enthusiasm is founded.

    Yes Rob, you're right, but in this moment the focus is not in claiming this is LENR or this technology will provide lot of useful energy. We simply have demonstrated that there is a real and "exotic" phenomenon that cannot be easily explained by current knowledge, but that can be easily replicated. In this moment I'm not even sure it is a LENR phenomenon. The point is that we finally have something we can study on purpose and in details. If it turns out to be LENR, we will be very very happy! Otherwise we will just have an exotic new battery (that is still exiting, considering the extremely slow progress in this field).

    With reference to your points:

    • in my experiment with the capacitor I tapped some energy from the device just to prove that it is actually capable of generating and transfering the energy, and it is not an artefact;
    • it is not true that LENR always generate energy outputs greater that conventional fuels: some LENR reactions, expecially involving transmutations or nuclear reorganization, do not liberate a lot of energy, some are even endothermic;
    • the device only employed only, not hydrogen, and the "active" volume is just the one of the plated layer (mostly Fe with some adsorbed H) that has micrometric thickness. This volume in the order of 0.1 cm^3 (probably much less);

    You are right in asking to verify how much the energy generation will last. This is one of the things I want to verify. Also: is the duration of the effect related to the drawn current or not? A short-circuited LEC will exhaust faster than an open circuit one? We still have many, many things to learn and understand before drawing any conclusion...

    Stevenson , 4,7 uJ was obtained in 15 seconds? Is that correct?

    Not exacly: that energy is the one of the fully charged capacitor: this required about 45 seconds.

    Do you plan to do any more experiments? These results on a first try are way beyond encouraging, even if the bulk energy density is small, this already could have practical uses as is.

    Yes, I will do other experiments: there is a ton of things to investigate! Some experiments will be directed in analysing the "emanation" from the WE, others will just try better characterize the LEC as a generator.

    The generated power is in the order of tenth of a uW (you can also calculate it multiplying V and I at the maximum power point, i.e. 100 kOhm). This is low, but may already have some practical applications. But in my opinion this is not the point: there are clearly two different mechanisms at play, the first is the unknown WE "radiation" (that is responsible for the current), the second is the one that generate the voltage. The former is the most interesting and promising, the latter still need to be properly understood, but may be related to some "classical" effect (the voltage is in fact function of the used metals). Probably the first effect (the ionization, or whatever it is), can be converted in a much more efficient way to a voltage. Moreover, the entire implementation of the device can be improved a lot compared to this rudimental setup.

    As anticipated, I will report here details of the my recplication of a working LEC device. Construction of the device and preliminary tests can be found in my previous posts. The device used here (brass-brass) is exaclty the same tested before as control (Fig. 1).

    - Electroplating/Co-deposition process

    The working electrode (WE) was gently rubbed with fine sandpaper and cleaned with alcohol, then it was placed in the electrolytic cell.

    The cell was realised with a normal test tube, with four 1 mm iron wires sourrounding the WE. The iron wires were connected to positive voltage while the WE was connected to negative (ground). The electrolyte was 1/4 HCl 20%, 3/4 tap water. The current was set by finely (manually) regulating the power supply voltage. The cell is shown in Fig 2 (note that the colour of leads is inverted, please not consider it).

    The current was set and maintained as follows, trying to follow Frank Gordon's indications:

    8:00 - 8:35: 0.7 mA [80 uA/cm^2] (0.167 V)

    8:35 - 9:05: 1.7 mA [190 uA/cm^2] (0.254 V)

    9:05 - 12:00: 16 mA [1.8 mA/cm^2] (0.375 V)

    12:00 - 16:00: 25 mA [2.8 mA/cm^2] (0.450 V)

    Temperature was 26.4°C, 45%RH at the beginning, 26.6°C, 51%RH at the end.

    At 15:30 the electrode appeared as shown in Fig.3 (it became black quite abruptly).

    - Preliminary test

    The plating process was ended at 16:00, the power supply dusconnected and the WE was extracted, rinsed with tap water and dryed accurately with soft paper towel. The plating appeared quite uniform, well attached to the brass substrate and with a fine porosity. The thickness was not measurable (probably less than 10um). An unexpected phenomenon noted while taking out the WE from the cell was that it, as well as the iron wires, were magnetised. This is not easy to explain considering the very low currents involved and the opposite current path, that should almost cancel out the generated magnetic field.

    The WE was inserted into the brass counter electrode (CE) in air at atmospheric pressure. No hydrogen was added. The voltage was measured with a multimeter with 10 MOhm input impedance.

    The initial reading was close to 0 mV, then in tens of seconds, it started rising and stabilizing around 242 mV. This was a clear indication that a voltage was generated by the device (the noise level was around 1 mV). This immediately triggered other tests and experiments, that were carried out in another lab. The device was closed but not permanently sealed, in order to allow further experiments. These were done as fast as possible, in order to avoid the the oxidation of the Fe plating and hydrogen desorption.

    - Voltage measurements

    The first test was to accurately measure the open circut voltage and short circuit current of the device, using the brass CE as well as the aluminium and copper one. The positive probe of the multimeter (10 MOhm impedance) was connected to the WE, the negative to the CE. Signs of voltages and currents reflects this choice. The voltage of device with the brass CE was -307 mV, the short circuit current was -2.4 uA. The voltage of the aluminium CE was 223 mV, and the current 1.5 uA. The voltage of the copper CE was -234 mV with a -0.69 uA short circuit current. The voltage of the brass CE device increased slowly overt time, so probably also with the other two metals higher figures would be obtained by extending the measurement time. During this experiment the peak voltage with brass CE was about 330 mV, as shown in Fig.4.

    Another test was done by loading the device (only brass CE from now on) with various resistors. The result is shown in the attached Voltage plot. The behaviour is exaclty the one reported by Frank Gordon at ICCF-23, showing an internal resistance in the order of 100 Kohm.

    - Current measurements

    The capability of the active device of conducting current was tested, as previously done with the control device, by applying an external voltage. The result is shown in the Current plot. The device was able to conduct a significative amount of current, so the voltage range was limited to -+10V, in order to avoid to damage the device (e.g. desorb the hydrogen). Maximum current at 10V was about 136/140 uA, compared to less than 10 pA measured on the control device: the active device is 7 order of magnitude more conductive. It can be noted from the plot that the current tend to saturation with higher voltage, this however was not explored during this experiments.

    - Additional experiments

    In order to verify the capability of the device to generate useful power/energy, the LEC was connected to a 100uF capacitor, and the charging process was monitored. The result is visibie in the Capacitor_GM plot. The capacitor was fully charged in about 90 seconds, it was disconnected and separately measured. The stored voltage was 309 mV, so the stored energy was 4.7 uJ. The time constant of the charging curve was 15 s, this is equal to the RC product of the circuit, so the internal R of the LEC is about 150 kOhm. This is in good agreement with the load plot.

    Another test was done on the naked WE (in air), with a Geiger-Muller counter (LND712, alpha sensitive), in order to detect potential radiation. The counts for background, for sample and for sample + plastic sheld are reported in the plot: no significative evidence of radiation were found.

    Lastly, the naked CE was left in air and in the darkness for about 1 hour, in contact with a glow-in-the-dark plastic strip (based on ZnS(Ag)) and some fluorescent substances. No fluorescence or phosphorescence was visibly excited in the materials.

    - Final considerations

    All the tests made were limited by the short time available before signs of oxidation (rusting) appeared on the Fe WE plating layer. Probably this effect can be reduced if the WE is sealed with hydrogen inside the CE. The day after the experiment, the condition of the WE was that shown in Fig.5, where visible oxidation can be noted. In this condition the LEC performance decreases (voltage is 50 mV or less). This problem probably is not presenti in case of Ni or Pd plating.

    - Conclusions

    A working LEC device was replicated successfully. The entire process was not difficult or critical in any way. The capability of the LEC of conducting a current should only be explained by the emission or generation of ions by the WE. The kind of emission of the WE remains unknown and require further investigation. Some magnetic anomalies were noted during the production and test of the LEC, that also need to be better investigated.

    Hi all! I have a relevant and wondeful news: I successfully replicated the LEC!

    I will write a dedicated post with full details, but for now I just want to communicate this result and to tell you the "making of" and the context.

    I started yesterday morning at home the electroplating process. In my intention this first attempt would be more a test of the setup and process than the actual experiment. So it was done without special cares (better, I would say in a relatively scruffy way...) In particular I didn't had the FeCl2 and even deionised water at hand, so I used a diluted solution of HCl as the electrolyte with Fe wires as anode, and ordinary tap water for dilution and rinsing (!).

    The regulation of current was a nightmere due to the very low currents and voltages involved. The power supply with fine regulation that I brought did non helped so much (a current generator made with a BJT would be a better choice...). I tried to follow the indication given by Frank Gordon, but there were some spike of 2 to 4 x nominal currents from time to time during manual regulations.

    I was very unhappy about the plating, because at first it was very slow and very uneven. Moreover the HCl caused a partial "dezincification" of the brass that turned slightly reddish. Then something abruptly changed in the last part of the process: the working electrode suddendly became black and the coating appeared very uniform.

    The entire process took about 8 hours, so in the afternoon I had the working electrode ready to be tested.

    I rinsed and gently dried it with a paper towel, then I inserted it into the counter electrode. I immediately measured the voltage with a multimeter and I read something very close to 0 mV. This do not surprised or disappointed me because it was just a sloppy test for the process, and the first attempt usually is never the good one. Hovever, after few seconds, the voltage started to steadly rise: something was happening! Wow 20 mV! Wow 100 mV! And still rising... The voltage finally stabilised around 242 mV: this was behond any possibility of errors. The thing was unequivocally generating a voltage! I throw immediatly all the things in the backpack an run to the lab, where I had better instrumentation to make measurements.

    I will describe the tests and results in a following post.

    The thing that I would like to stress here is that the LEC worked well at my first attempt, even if the process was done in a very "non canonical" way. This means that it is not critical or particularly sensitive to parameters, and so it apparently is very very easy to replicate.

    [Stay tuned for full data and pictures!]

    I just tap it on a paper towel to knock some of the water off or lightly touch it with a paper towel and at most, let it dry for a couple minutes before inserting it into a larger pipe.

    Thank you, i will do the same. I asked because I also noticed some rust forming in a couple of days on the parts i plated for test some time ago.

    For the voltages produced by LEC cells, we concluded that the impact of humidity can be neglected.

    I haven't done specific tests on the effet of humidity, but I noticed that daily variations of humidity do not affect the results at all.

    This morning, the conference organizers posted the 15 minute LEC presentation on the conference web site so people could watch it at a convenient time in their time zone.

    Good presentation Frank Gordon! It goes straight to the key points. The plots extending to quite low resistive loads and the current levels are really noticeable. Good to know that it is possible to verify immediately the effect in air, without even using hydrogen.

    Just one question: what treatment do you apply to the working electrode after plating with Fe? Does it need to be dryed in a specific manner (e.g. by baking it)?

    Stevenson , thanks for sharing these important steps with us. Are you going to do the electroplating yourself, have you done it already or you are waiting for some component or material to be delivered to you yet? Sorry for the questions, just curious.

    Hi Curbina! Yes, I will make electroplating by myself, and I already have more or less all the materials and equipment needed to start. In the past month(s) I spent some time excercising with the process (I made many electrochemical experiments in the past, but not electroplating, that requires a good dose of skill or at least good thechnique...). I finally obtained quite good results, so now I'm relatively confident. I will start with iron, since it is probably simpler and for sure cheaper: I tested a "recipe" that turned out to be the same suggested by Frank. Later I will also try with nickel (I'm still waiting to receive some Ni strips).

    I'm aware that in the electroplating process and in the post-treatements there are a huge number of (hidden) variables, so it will be not easy to get good results immediately. But we have to try if we want see what happen... ;)

    EDIT: the measurements on the control devices are very repeatable and the resolution I achieved allow me to see phenomena that are order of magnitudes smaller that the one reported by Frank et al. So, if there is something "unusual", some "vital sign", even very small, I will probably spot it.

    Hi all!

    Today I completed the tests on the control devices, measuring voltages and currents with hydrogen instead of air. The results were almost the same:

    • Open circuit voltage: 0 mV +- 0.025 mV, independently from metals and pressure used
    • Current @ +-60V: 0 uA (+- 90 pA), independently from metals and sighly decreasing with pressure

    So the results are now complete and quite robust: a device with the structure of the LEC, with an untreated electrode, does not generate a spontaneous voltage and, most important IMO, is not capable of conducting a meaningful current (in its normal working voltage range). This behaviour is not affected by the emplyed metals, by the gas (air and hydrogen tested), and gas pressure (range tested 300 to 760 Torr). The behaviour of the control device is exacly the one expected from the theory. A spontaneous voltage and the capability of conducting a current of the original LEC device, cannot be explained by galvanic or other bimetallic effects or by electrochemical potentials, since all these elements should be present also in the tested control devices.

    Here attached you can find some picture of the devices: the basic brass-brass one, also disassembled, the brass-copper and the brass-aluminium.

    Next (very important) step: replicating the eletroplating process and testing an "active" device!