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

Posts by Stevenson

    Tibi.fusion, it takes some time and effort to study all the material you posted. Also, some information are missing from your more recent description and they are scattered all over the thread, so it is not so easy to reconstruct all the details. I would suggest you to make a recap or even a formal and comprehensive report doc: this adds value to your work and makes easier for other to understand and comment (you could ask a comment even from dr. Egely himself this way).

    In the meantime, I will try to read and understand the material posted here, but it will takes some time...

    Tibi.fusion, If the yellow track in the last figure is current on the load resistor, it appears as the arc is suddenly interrupted. A momentary internal short circuit (discharge) on the capacitor could explain this, but the voltage on the capacitor should decrease abruptly and this do not happen. BTW, the current interruption is very fast, much faster than the other time constants and frequencies involved in the circuit: something very fast happening in the arc or in the capacitor seems to cause this. I cannot figure out if it is "exotic" or not.

    Using power-electronics and plasma physics principles, please explain:

    1. What charges the capacitor bank back up in 2nd and 3rd waveform occasionally, with respect to 1st baseline waveform?

    It is an interesting phenomenon: the teeth are part of the same curve, with a single time constant (it is a DC voltage) that is repeatedly "broken" by secondary disharges (that can occur at lower voltage since the gas has been pre-ionized by the first disharce). To investigate the origin of this phenomenon you should measure the also the currents around the capacitors.

    EDIT: Tibi.fusion if you are able to generate this phenomenon at will (almost partially), it would be interesting to observe the voltage across R1, the spark gap and the R3. This can provide some information on the location where the apparent "excess voltage" is generated. You can just place there the probe, once at a time, and comparing the waveform between the "normal" condition and the "exotic" one (no need to acquire also the capacitor voltage at the same time, the difference should be visible). The voltage across R1 is important because it will reveal if the extra-energy comes from the flyback, due to some recoil phenomenon, inductive effect, change in impedance or whatever: that would be not so anomalous. If the energy comes from the right side of the circuit, things become more intriguing... :)
    BTW, C1 failing in an open circuit is probably due to the current pulse that tears and finally breakes the internal leads connections. The usual failure mode of capacitors due to high voltage is by short circuit.

    Nagel IE163 Direct Electrical Production from LENR (1).pdf

    At the request of the author...also covers work on the LEC, A useful read covering a large number of experiments.

    Direct Electrical Production from LENR

    Very interesting and useful review paper!

    David reports a detail that I missed and that could be important to understand the working principle of the LEC: apparently Erickson observed tracks emitted by a WE in a cloud chamber. I saw no publication reporting this detail. Can someone confirm this?

    1. The biggest and most obvious is 'can we increase output by 2 orders of magnitude from the current level by the required level to claim the possibility of creating a 300CC 3W 10 year battery?.

    2. What happens when you couple LECs in series? This AFAIK has never been done.

    Actually, we have even more fundamental questions to answer :D :

    A. Will/can a LEC provide energy for 10 years? Currently we have no idea of the duration of a cell and on the influence of materials and process on duration;

    B. Are there some physical factors that intrinsically prevent scaling? As an example, you can reduce a lot the volume by using films instead of bulk electrodes, but this will work only if the effect takes place on the very surface;

    C. How does the energy flow (that implies a ionic current inside the device) degrades the materials or their properties? Is there a wear of the materials due to the current and/or difference in potential?

    D. Is the current implementation the best way to extract the energy?

    These, and many other questions make me think that the best thing to do is to study and understand the phenomena, before starting building practical applications. Even though, as I said, the LEC powered LED is a good exercise that can be useful to generate awareness on this technology, and can answer some of the pending questions (series cell, duration, and so on). But I don't think will be something commercially viable.

    Providing hardware to one person at a time is expensive and slow. If we can help 100 people to make do-it-yourself cells, and those cells all work, that would be a lot faster! It would not cost us anything. It could increase the number of LECs exponentially. Much better all around.

    Jed, instructions are already there and almost all the people that tried to replicate succeeded. The problem is not demonstrate the reality of the effect, it is to seriously investigating how it works, and this is something that only people with good credentials, skills and lab can do. Giving away a kind of gadget to many people that cannot deepen the study will not be useful at all, or it can be even counterproductive, because people will take it as a kind of weird scientific toy and dismiss it instead studying it. This was what happened after the first wave of replication: "great, the phenomenon is real! And now what?"
    Talking to the press of a portable light powered by a new energy source, will have tens to hundreds times more impact! Charging a cell phone with it will do it even more. And this for sure is in our reach.


    Lynn Bowen, new President of the ISCMNS has pulled together a research team for a joint research effort into developing the LEC. 5 labs -including mine- are involved so far. Frank and my ambition is to light a LED from a LEC as this makes a potent image likely to attract more interest than calorimetry or transmutation results. You might consider joining us.

    Yes Alan, I'm available to design the optimized electronics for energy havesting and battery charging. This approach can minimize the required number of cells (due to either higher efficiency in energy conversion and storage). Of course I can also contribute with my first hand experience with the LEC, if needed. My primary interest in the LEC is purely scientific, and there are still many questions to answer. A very important one is: how much energy can be extracted from the LEC? This is a good and useful way to find the answer. :)

    The effect is repeatable, with the uv led off, I measure a Voltage in the microvolt range, when the led is on much higher voltages are measured, depending on the allignment of the different parts of the test set-up even up to 20 milliVolt.

    This can easily be explained given your experimental conditions: the UV light extract electrons from one of the electrode, so it becomes positively charged. You should verify if you also get a directed (unipolar) sustainable current in the order of uA, or you can get a bidirectional (bipolar) forced current in the order of 100s uA by applying an external voltage of some Volts. I suspect these behaviors will be quite different from a conventional LEC. As I said many times, it is important to measure the current, not the voltage, to study a LEC. Even in the normal LEC, the voltage is a second order conventional effect, the ionization instead, that is the prime effect, is not conventional at all...

    If I remember well, Stevenson in his early experiments tested without preloading with hydrogen/deuterium and also the reactor was filled with air.

    Nevertheless there was the voltage effect.

    This likely precludes the theory Ed is proposing.

    Actually, the "dummy" tests that I made (without co-deposition/preloading) didn't generate any voltage or current. However, after the co-deposition/preloading you can get the voltage/current even without hydrogen/deuterium (just air) in the chamber. I think that currently we cannot discard Ed's explanation.

    I also considered the UV/VUV hypothesis, and I already made some tests setting the active WE close to some fluorescent plastics. I have not detected any visible light (by eye only), but probably it is worth to repeat the test with a more sensitive light detector (this setup will closely resamble a scintillator detector, so this should in principle be able to detect something, if the scintillator crystal is directly exposed the the WE, without cover).

    The UV hypothesis can also explain the results from Rout and Srinivasan with photographic emulsion.

    Note that if air gets ionized, the involved UV energy is at least 15 eV, i.e. far UV under 100 nm. I suggested to use He as a gas, to gauge this energy, since it has an even higher ionization energy, around 23 eV.

    Also note that the LEC doesn't work in vacuum, but it was always tested measuring the voltage. It photoelectric effect is present, you should get a current (forced current, if you apply an external voltage), but not a spontaneous voltage.

    Building the system is relatively simple if you are practical, the problems arise when you attempt to measure what's going on. And high-voltage probes are very expensive, but without 2 it is difficult to be sure of what's happening.

    It is not too difficult to build a high voltage probe: just use a compensated voltage divider, featuring a high voltage rated resistor on the high voltage side. Since the voltage is not so high (few kVs), there is no need to use GOhm resistors and so also the compensating capacitor could be relatively manageable. Another simple approach is using for the high voltage resistor a series of few conventional resistor (film resistors, not wirewound, so to minimize inductance), each one with their compensating capacitor.

    If both the WE and CE are both plated in the same way, is then the voltage zero ?

    And if that is the case, is there then still conduction between the electrodes when applying an external voltage ?

    Has anybode done such tests ?

    This is an interesting experiment, at least conceptually (not really useful in practice though, as Alan said). If you use the same metal with the same surface treatment you will get almost zero voltage (part of the voltage depends on the difference in work functions, part from asymmetry in ion diffusion), but you will still be able to pass a current between the electrodes because the gas will be ionized.

    The 2 Joule thief circuits arrived...

    A possible evolution from the Joule thief can be a dedicated energy harvester chip, like one of these:

    ePeas semiconductors

    Compared to the Joule thief, these will work starting from a lower voltage and, most important, will work at the maximum power transfer point for the cell, achieving greater efficiency!

    Once the performance of your multi-LEC are known, I can design a specific solution employing these components if you want. Showing a new energy source, employing the best available electronic technologies, and possibly powering something useful, will be a sensational news for the media... ^^

    This is tangentially connected to the LEC story- this is a white NANOLED, less than i cubic millimeter. I want to see if I can reliably light it up, but I thought the picture might interest those who like me didn't know just how small they go.

    Hi Alan!

    It is much easier to light an high-efficiency red LED: these are so efficient that you can produce a faint light simply by holding with your fingers one of its lead! (No magic: it is due to the mains voltage that capacitively couples with the body and induce a sufficient voltage, even if at very high impedance). In general you have to use enough voltage to overcome the diode forward voltage, but the current can be really negligible (even uA). White LEDs have quite high forward voltage, in the order of 3-4V, red LEDs works around 1V.

    Storms, do you have any ideas on other geometrical features required for the cracks/gap to be LENR-active, apart from dimension? In particular, there could be gaps with a point-like shape (almost spherical), quasi-linear (one dimension is much longer than the others), and quasi-planar (two dimensions much larger than the other). Probably specific kind of preparation or treatment brings more one kind of these defects more than the others. Identifying which is the most effective in triggering LENR reaction could allow to focus on specific treatments or preparations methods.

    This also would be a valuable information if we think to engineer and create an active material from scratch.

    For example, I was thinking that it would be possible to build a planar Pd film (up to some 100s um thick) with an array of nanometric cavities of different sizes (let say from few nm to 1 um) patterned on it, by using common integrated circuit production technologies (masking, PVD/CVD, MBE, etc). Such an array of cavities would allow very easily to spot what is the right size of the gap required to trigger LENR effects. Also the inverse pattern would probably be interesting (array of isolated "pins" of different dimensions). Do you think it would be an effective approach? It would have the great advantage of being 1) completely controllable and reproducible; 2) employing electronic grade materials, that are very pure and so can exclude any contamination hypothesis in case of new elements are found post-reaction.

    I think Ed's paper is an important piece of work for the LENR field: I never read a similar detailed historical review that comparatively analyzes treatments, methods and obtained results. Also some information contained in the paper are quite new to me, and they for sure worth spreading. It's a great reference for people that approaches this field, and a valuable starting point for further research!

    Thanks Ed! :thumbup:

    I have two 7.5 KV 0.1mF capacitors. Are they (one or both, series or parallel) going to provide a reasonable amount of smoothing, or should I try something else.?

    It also depends on the output impedance of the HV AC generator and the level of "smoothness" that is required. But in general something around 0.1uF should be fine.

    I am by no means an electrochemist, but the idea of ionic exchange through a gaseous dielectric medium seems like it has already been pretty vigorously tested between dissimilar metals.

    Brief recap: a "non-activated" LEC does not generate any voltage and current, even if built with two dissimilar metals, with or without humidity inside, with or without Hydrogen, Deuterium or whatever gas; The LEC has been tested at -55°C to freeze potential humidity and it still works; It is not possible to explain the continuous current by means of spontaneous electrostatic potential; The co-deposition step, or even just hydrogen loading of the working electrode, triggers the effect; All the evidences point to a ionization of the internal gas; It is known from older papers and patents, that if you have a ionized gas between two dissimilar metals, you get exactly the same kind of voltage and current we observe on the LEC. Currently the source and the mechanism of the ionization is unknown and unexplained.

    It seems to me the other likely candidate to the principal of the LECs operation may lay in the elusive and taboo realm of Zero Point Energy.
    Which leads me to something that I believe would relate to this topic and hopefully add to the conversation.
    Zero-Point Energy Harvesting by Garret Model

    No ZPE involved: the voltage and current generation mechanism is relatively straightforward and conventional, once you got the ionized gas. The only "anomalous" and unexplained thing is the ionization of the gas, that occurs as a consequence of the Hydrogen loading. No ionizing radiation have been detected up to now.

    The Ohmart patent is very interesting since it describes, confirms and characterizes one part (about one half) of the LEC effect: the possibility of generating a voltage difference and a current by using two metal electrodes and a ionized gaseous medium. In the patent there are a number of confirmations on the observations we made on the LEC, and also some information on experiments we have not made yet.

    Main findings are:

    • The voltage difference is due to some additional surface property and not only to the electrode potential and work function difference;
    • Surface properties of materials affects the generated voltage, and some insulating or "semiconducting" compound can be used to generate the effect (such as leas oxide, copper oxide and aluminium oxide);
    • The effect can be used as a sensitive detector in a number of applications, one of which is characterizing this specific material property (Ed Storm suggested something similar about the LEC);
    • Some useful relationships among various parameters are reported, clarifying some of the observed data about the LEC (e.g. dependence with temperature, polarity invertions, etc);
    • The effect is only obtained when the gas is ionized by external means.

    The LEC makes a step forward compared to the Ohmart effect, in that it does no need an external radiation source to work: the ionization is self-generated. BTW, this is an indirect and additional confirmation that the gas inside the LEC is actually ionised.

    The Ohmart effect is not explained in the patent and related documents, but now we know that it is responsible for the voltage generation in the LEC. However the LEC has an additional feature and mistery associated with it: it is able to self-ionise the gas.

    The picture now is a bit more clear in that now we confidently know that there are two different, and probably unrelated, effects at play in the LEC. This suggests to avoid studying the overall LEC efficiency only by measuring the voltage (that is a compound effect), but always adding the forced current measurement, that is an indication of the ionization (and so a measurement of the first effect).