Posts by Stevenson

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).

Quote from Alan Smith

I think the simplest way ei measure the output is going to be with a matched pair of resistances in a couple of oil baths- one on the input and one on the output.

I fully agree. The only thing to take care of is choosing a good resistor value: higher resistance will bring higher sensitivity, but will also cause undesired voltage drops that may be very harmful for the normal operation of the device (and/or load). The ideal criterion would be to choose the lowest possible value that allow sufficient sensitivity. Thermal sensitivity can be increased by decreasing the specific heat of the fluid and having a very good insulation. Temperature measurement should be done with PT-100 (possibly class A), not thermocouples or even fancy techniques (e.g. optical/IR) .

Quote from Frogfall

One possibility might be to use some form of fluorescent paint and directly coat a "proven" WE.

Although the paint at the link above is produced to work with long wavelength UV (from commercial 'blacklight' tubes), I suspect it might also work with shorter wavelengths.

This is a possibility that Alan and I considered. Shorter wavelength UV should excite normal fluorescent dyes (either dusts or liquid). This is in the list of things to test.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

For vacuum UV use ozone detectors.

This is another interesting suggestion. A quite indirect measurement, but surely feasible.

Quote from Frogfall

That's a point. Has anyone carried out a sniff test on a working electrode?

(n.b. success would depend on how sensitive the sniffer's nose is. I could always tell if a lab contained radioactive materials, just by smelling the faint odour of ozone when first walking in. But I've got an overly sensitive schnoz )

I worked with ozone detectors (I even designed and calibrated one!) I can confirm that ozone can be detected by average human noses in concentrations as small as 10s ppb! Sniffing is even a more sensitive and reliable tool that most electronic sensors...

In my experience however WE smells of "iron" and/or "chemicals", so it is difficult to isolate a potential ozone fragrance (by using nose only)...

Quote from Alan Smith

More as I -hopefully - make progress, but in brief we are talking about maybe 4 or 5 cells in series using pure iron foil working electrodes (no co-dep) and nickel foam counter electrodes. There's a big learning curve on this one.

I didn't succeed in loading Fe electrodes (either soft and hard): this originally lead me to think that co-dep was necessary. Why do not use the Ni foam as WE instead?

Quote from THHuxleynew

It shows that a low voltage is enough to emit electrons - and the local field near the surface can be very high due to surface effects perhaps.

Uncertain, I agree, but possible?

In my opinion that mechanism is unnecessarily complex and do not entirely explain the effect, since once you have electrons emitted from the surface you still have to ionize the gas, and this requires additional energy. Also, the LEC does not work in vacuum (no current), so the "enhanced" emission of electrons (even in vacuum, where it is easier) can be safely discarded.

By the way, photoelectric effect is able to do something similar, and it is easier to achieve, but you cannot obtain the entire LEC phenomenology just by using photoelectric emission (for the same reasons above).

Quote from THHuxleynew

Looking at the recent literature - surfaces exist that will emit electrons with energy a few eV or lower. The following link shows a surface emitting at less than 10V

Not exaclty: 10 V is the voltage difference "inside" the emitting electrode that accelerate electrons toward the surface, where they are emitted by tunnelling or field emission thanks to the external voltege (200 V or more across 0.5 mm). I would say that this is quite a bit different from the LEC.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Possibly a large isolated plate could pick up - due to capacitive coupling - 10V or so of 50Hz hum which would be enough, at the very low emission currents needed, to trigger this type of emission mechanism.

In the tubular implementation of the LECs, the active electrode is essentially screened from the 50 Hz by the outer counter electrode.

Quote from THHuxleynew

This mechanism could be eliminated by connecting the two electrodes via a large capacitor so reducing the capacitive coupling onto the electrode of extraneous sources.

I did this in my first replication. My aim was different (collecting the generated energy), but the results showed no difference with or without the big capacitor.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Whether this flies or not - the fact that electron emission into the atmosphere from < 10V sources is known to work (at currents of uA/cm^2) perhaps shows a common mechanism with LEC ionisation.

Actually the paper shows a more specific situation: <10 V is the voltage applied across the active electrode, but 200-600 V are still needed between this and the counter electrode separated by 0.5-1 mm of air.

Compared to this, the LEC generates ionization (but also voltage and current) with no applied voltage. In my opinion, it is hard to make a comparison.

Quote from Frogfall

I've been thinking a little more about the possible VUV (Vacuum Ultraviolet) activity of some LEC working electrodes...

Your thinking is very welcome! I thought to VUV too (among many other things). But apparently they were not detected by magicsound operating in actual vacuum. Was their energy lower than the probe sensensitivity region? We don't know...

I proposed to test the LEC with Helium, since it has a quite high ionization energy (around 24 eV). This would be an easy and rough way to assess the energy emitted radiation (or the phenomenon in general). If Helium didn't get ionised, we will know that the radiation energy is lower than 24 eV. This will be a very valuable information!

Quote from Alan Smith

There is no need to discourage replication, but more to view it as the welcome joining in of another potential helper.

I didn't mean it! Of course it is an excellent thing having people engaged in replications and experiments, the point was that at the beginning we all were more focused on verifying the reality of the effect that to understand it. Your multitude of experiments for example, in my view are actual explorative experiments, not just "replications". Needless to say, in any cases exploratory research need to starts from simple replication...

Quote from Wyttenbach

I gave you two reason that teh figure of >10eV is wrong.

The answer was partial, because it didn't include all other observed cases, such as N2, O2 and other gases, that actually get ionised as well.

Quote from Wyttenbach

1) Most porous surfaces show Rydberg electrons that are bound below temperature level. E.g. n=60 or = few micro volt.

Please elaborate on that, providing a counter-experiment. Sometimes theoretician tend to be a little "apodictic": please give me experiment that can prove or disprove certain hypothesis, otherwise they can be classified just as "opinions".

Quote from Wyttenbach

2) In a solution the H-H separation voltage is 10x lower. All surfaces behave solution like if you don't work under e.g. Argon/Nitrogen as there always is air with hydrogen.

Sorry, I didn't get it...

Also, if the phenomenon is so explainable, can you provide other examples (known or specially made) where you get the same behaviors?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Don't waste your time with improper experiments.

I agree that there is no more need for replications: the effect has been observed consistently by a large number of researcher. We now need to understand what happens, so more specific experiments should be carried out.

We still need to find some unequivocal signature of LENR, but we have the gas ionization, that cannot be explained by ordinary knowledge. So, instead of complaining, get into the challenge: are you able to provide a good theoretical explanation for a phenomenon requiring >10 eV happening in that very simple environment? (In finding it, please take into account that in my experiments the plating voltage was < 0.5 V all the time).

Quote from Bob Ellefson

When I saw Bob Greenyer at the recent IWAHLM-15 workshop, I encouraged him to write up a concise summary of his reviews of these phenomena, as I found his mountains of videos impassable.

I agree. I followed almost all the videos and material that Bob presented in recent years, and the evidence it shows are compelling and absolutely relevant to understand LENR and other exotic phenomena. But it is very difficult to make order and to make a coherent and consequential picture simply digging in all these materials and concepts. It would be very important that he would start to write some papers or even a book. This is the only way this knowledge can spread, be accepted and applied. Otherwise the fate of it is to be forgotten or just considered as "cranky stuff" such most of the lost inventions that dr. Egely resumed (and that were not at all as that).

Quote from can

If in this case it purely shows a proximity effect then it would indeed rule out common chemical effects. Has this been already described somewhere? I probably missed it.

This configuration has been described in a number of presentation by Frank. You can find a schematic and picture also in his recent presentation at IWAHLM conference (see the sprecific thread here on the forum, you will find the Youtube video).

Quote from Frogfall

One thing that still concerns me about the LEC "ionisation" is that some gases (and particularly O2) have a fairly high "electron affinity". O2- in air can be created purely from negatively charged "pointy" (or rough) surfaces - without any required ionisation energy. i.e. the charge can just "bleed away".

The devices have been tested also with gases different from Air/O2: the effect is the same. Also, I think that the effect you describe cannot account for the amount of ionised particles and the fact the there are also negative charged particles in the gas.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Only if total energy out is > all chemical potentials = free Gibbs energy.

Are you aware of any chemical reaction having a Gibbs energy or enthalpy in the order of 15 eV? Because in order to have the gas ionised you need this kind of energy. I have no proof we have to do with a LENR phenomenon, but still we have to explain the "anomalies" we observe with conventional effects (and none was able to do this up to now)...

Quote from can

Would attempting to measure a voltage across a LEC working electrode and a resistor of some sort in series show anything meaningful? I think it would be something akin to how Celani observed the voltage in his case. Probably it would have to be in the MOhm range here.

Hi Can! There are some evidences that Celani's wires are able to generate more or less the same phenomenon that we observe in the LEC (BTW, as Ed Storm suggested, many LENR systems probably will produce the same effect): they are able to ionize the gas once loaded with hydrogen. But measuring the voltage across the wires is not the right way to get the effect. I would suggest the opposite: testing the voltage between the Celani wires and a counter electrode inside or outside the coil (if inside, the supporting material should be permeable). The reason why there is a voltage between the ends of the Celani wires is that their longitudinal resistance is relatively high and they are not completely homogeneous (in terms of hydrogen occlusion and probably for electromigration phenomena). But you cannot measure a similar voltage in LEC WEs, because they have a very small resistance and so the entire volume will be at the same potential, even if there are local charge generation phenomena.

I would like to remind that Frank and Harper also tested the voltage generation between a copper and zinc electrodes when an active WE was set in close proximity. In this case you don't even involve the WE in the voltage measurement, but it still does its "magic". This is in my opinion the best demonstration that the LEC effect is not an artifact and is not a chemical effect.

I'm pretty sure U. Mastromatteo will be very interested in presentations about the LEC. Given his experience with electronic technologies and materials, he could potentially bring very interesting contributions...

Quote from Bruce__H

So if you take a piece of hydrogen-loaded metal, wouldn't you expect a traditional gas-filled ion chamber of the type used for radiation detection to also be able to measure the ionization from it?

It depends... Some ionization chambers are closed, some have thin windows, other are completely open. Not all chambers will detect the radiation. The open type will for sure detect the radiation or at least the ionization. By the way, this is something that I plan to do: I would like to build a small (pen-like) ionization chamber to scan a sample. This will answer to your basic question and will allow for a number of more complex experiments.

Quote from Alan Smith

BTW- 304 S/Steel seems reluctant to accept much hydrogen, at least at the temperature level in the tank. I know you can hot gas load it, but electrolysis only yields around 10mV. Mild steel is better, though I have no reliable data to hand.

I made some tests to electrolytically load mild steel and hard steel rods (no co-dep), but I get no "vital signs", so my conclusion (that I reported also at ICCF24) was that hydrogen loading alone was not sufficient to get the effect. Actually you have demonstrated that this is not true: it depends on the specific metal. This is, by the way, coherent to what Rout and Srinivasan wrote.

Quote from Bruce__H

My question is why don't other devices acting on the same or related principles measure the same thing?

I'm not aware of other devices that are built on the same principle of the LEC. There are many kind of radiation detectors, and some are even mechanically similar, but normally they are not subjected to electrochemical co-deposition or hydrogen loading.

Quote from Martellino

Such testing should have been the top priority since these conditions of use were found to be acceptable. Almost two years since the opening of the thread and no one has ever thought about it?

There are a bunch of serious scientist working on the LEC, and all excluded in the early stages the kind of effect you hypothesized, based on data and available experimental evidence. It is clear that you have not read all the available documentation, do not know in details the experiments that have been carried out and probably you do not even make the effort of extrapolating the answer to your question from the documented data. So, it is ok suggesting a test, but also to reasoning a bit on the answers that have been given to you. Also, each researcher has its own roadmap and priority, your concept of "priority", as an external (and distract) observer, worth almost nothing in this context. Moreover, insistence is not welcome here, as well as in any community. So, if you feel you can add something constructive to the discussion, just trim a little bit your interaction style and keep interacting, otherwise don't expect that people takes into account what you say any more.

Quote from THHuxleynew

So: RFI as mechanism. (I mean this loosely - it could be 50Hz).

How is that ruled out?

As described in my report, yes, at least in my experiments it has been ruled out conclusively. I describe a number of precautions in order to avoid to pick up electromagnetic interference (synchronizing measurements with mains frequency, using integrating instruments and not true RMS, averaging results, using <1 MOhm load, checking operating conditions with a control devices, and so on). In any cases, even without any precautions, the impact of this kind of interference is one or two order of magnitude smaller than the measured signal.

Quote from Martellino

If the electrodes work quietly (for hours, at least) in a standard atmosphere, I see no reason not to demonstrate in a DIRECT and CONCLUSIVE way that the LEC effect has nothing to do with "crosstalk" of any kind (H spillover, contamination, etc. etc.) through the surfaces in contact with them.

Experiments require time and work to be carried out, so if you decide to do one, it should worth the effort. In my opinion all the replicators have had many evidence that the effect you describe can be safely excluded (there are many direct and indirect observations that lead to this conclusion, and I mentioned one above), so this is not a priority compared to other very important things to investigate. However, it is reasonable and makes sense, in theory.

The "vise" setup you described may be useful to accurately measure the dependence of the voltage and current from the distance, so it may worth a try. It requires flat electrodes though (that I have not tried yet).

@Martellino, if you are suggesting that H ions may be transferred through the insulators, I would say that this is not coherent with what we observed: a large number of different insulator materials have been tested and it is very unlikely that all behave the same way. Also, when you apply an external voltage to the LEC you can get a (perfectly symmetric) current in the order of fraction of mA, that are incompatible with ion migration through the insulator.

If you are thinking instead to a superficial conduction mechanism on the dielectrics (either H ions or other contaminants, such as moisture), this is also incompatible with the variety of insulators that have been tested and the amount of current that can be forced.

Moreover, there is a counter-experiment (actually more than one) that demonstrates that the conduction apparently happen via the gas: if you cover the active area (not the insulators) with a thin sheet of plastic or teflon, you get no voltage and no conduction.

Hi all!

Yesterday I made a test using a PWM modulated current during co-deposition. The duty cycle was set to 10%, frequency 100 Hz, so the current was ON for 1 ms, OFF for 9 ms. I set the voltage in order to obtain the exact average current I usually applied. Using these settings, the voltage was about 3-4x higher than usual and the peak current was theoretically 10x the usual average current.

The deposition process was apparently not affected (as for dynamics and results), and also the final "activity" of the LEC was more or less the usual one (slightly lower). So a higher pulsating current with this frequency and duration do not affect the activity.

Quote from magicsound

Regarding use of x-ray film for detection, I ran three tests using self-developing dental x-ray films, laid directly on the active electrode for up to 12 hours. No artifacts or fogging was seen on those. But dental x-ray films are designed for sensitivity in the range 40-60 keV, and would thus not show lower energy emissions that might have been missed by the CdTe spectrometer.

The problem with self-developing films is that they are enclosed in a plastic layer. In my opinion "bare" films have to be used to get something. I'm pretty sure an autoradiography of a LEC WE will image something, because the activation of the photochemical reaction on a film requires lower energy compared to the gas ionization (even if films are optimized for higher energy X-rays).