Hydrogen needs about 4.3 eV to dissociate what means you get H+ and H-
It seems that value is to get neutral monatomic hydrogen. To get asymetric ionisation (H+ H-) is around four times as much.
Frogfall
Verified User
- Member since Aug 25th 2022
Posts by Frogfall
-
-
The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism was once the preferred explanation for how the sun generated its heat and light. The arguments over whether the sun's energy was nuclear in origin raged for many years longer than it should have, given the available evidence.
There used to be a good account of the controversy on wikipedia, which described the mechanism as an obsolete theory.
However...
Since it has been established (via space probe measurements) that the large outer planets of the solar system radiate more heat than can possibly reach them from the sun, the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism has been resurrected, dusted-off, and proclaimed as the explanation for this Gas Giant heat anomaly. This is because astronomers dare not propose any form of independent nuclear-derived heat production within a planet - or their careers would be destroyed...
-
I think your conclusions and expectations are too fast..
What conclusions? What expectations?
I've been waiting for a decent theory on the mechanisms of hydrogen embrittlement for 40 years - and people have been researching it for over a century. It would have certainly helped my work, had I not had to worry about people being accidentally killed by the stuff I was designing
What is the source of those images, btw?
-
I have acquired an electroscope. When I get back to the lab I plan to test it, but I doubt is will fir into my vacuum chamber.
Haha. Well if the charge generation is large enough (say, from the ferrocerium) then that shouldn't matter. I've seen it work with a small lump of (I think) Strontium-90.
-
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.
(Did you mean "also positive charged particles"?)
I had hoped to use that argument against it too - but unfortunately lots of gases exhibit electron affinity. That's why I called it a "concern". If there are tiny amounts of continual negative charge generation withing the electrode, it could just "leak away" - leaving an isolated working electrode in an uncharged state (unless in a vacuum, or in a fully insulating gas).
Conversely, if the ionisation is more energetic in some way (15 eV and above), and photonic, then an isolated electrode would still remain neutral in a vacuum and in an "insulating" gas.
But in both cases, a differential work-function voltage could be generated when in proximity to a suitable counter-electrode.
I guess one way to differentiate between the two scenarios would be to fill a working LEC with a selection of gases that were known not to exhibit any electron affinity - but could ionise at a range of low energies (anywhere from 15 eV to 150 eV).
The BARC "electric field" fogging tests, with different polarities, would certainly suggest that there were both positive and negative ions in their gas - which would support the photon hypothesis. But then they got their best results when oxygen was present, so that slightly messes up the logic.
I'd still like to see a WE connected to a leaf-type electroscope, in a vacuum
(EDIT: Just thinking aloud, in a kind of Baconian manner. Some of these tests might have been done by people, and for some I'll probably have to pull my finger out, and get around to doing them myself)
-
O2 as well as N2 are directly heated at VUV frequencies...
(moved from IWAHLM conference thread - as I guess these discussions should really be in the LEC thread)
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".
This isn't usually a problem unless the charge is high (in the kV range) - so it might be another red herring in LEC terms - since we are dealing with tiny voltages. But it is still something that needs to be kept in mind, I think, when looking at the gas in the LEC.
-
Iwamura..
Heatbursts..trapped hydrogen hypothesis TM46.55
This was also mentioned in the "hydrogen embrittlement" webinar, linked in the LEC thread last week. The "conventional" (i.e. non-LENR) hypothesis involves migration of trapped monatomic hydrogen to zones of concentration (e.g. grain boundaries, dislocations, etc) where they exothermically recombine.
Those of us who have experienced the sudden fracture of "hydrogen embrittled" high tensile steel bolts, a few hours after being put under normal preload (i.e. torque-fastened on assembly), will be familiar with the effects.
However, there is a big difference between a "conventional hypothesis" and a complete, and proven, theoretical explanation of the final effect. So this is still very much a continuing area of research, outside of the LENR field - and there is still plenty of mystery.
-
JedRothwell - Found it. I was actually talking about this paper:
EMISSIONS FROM PALLADIUM DEUTERIDE/HYDRIDE. R. K. Rout, et al. 1996
Looking at it again, there are all sorts of oddities - and some of the conclusions could be quite wide of the mark, when comparing it to later work by other people.
The charge field effects could be evidence of gas phase electrophoresis, I guess, and they don't seem to be differentiating between effects from ion migration and from direct "ray" transmission. But this was all new, and mysterious, so that is not too surprising.
I'm going to really have to start doing some of these tests myself (I've already got most of the electrical kit required - if it still works, after a couple of house moves). It doesn't feel right to just rely on other people's hard work.
-
Maybe we are talking about different experiments but
I think we are. I was too tired to find the paper I was referring to last night, and can't find now either! (will post a link when I track it down). The images you linked to certainly do suggest X Rays.
-
Alan Smith and others have always measured zero voltage by doing so, as for example reported earlier. This should rule out the LEC being an electrophorus.
Only a small number of materials have been tried so far. The question arose about the behaviour of one material - which exhibited an uncharacteristic effect when placed on one side of a glass slide, with a counter electrode on the other. This is important - as "the exception proves the rule".
Hopefully, in time we may find other materials that behave in uncharacteristic ways - which will all help in building a more useful model of what is happening.
Note that the illustration was not being used to say that the WE is an electrophorus - it was there to show that if you dangle a lump of something, that is charged, and you measure its potential to earth (and yes, you would need a high impedance meter) then you would see a voltage. You just seemed to be struggling with this concept.
-
What I'm saying is that to me it seems expected that measuring the LEC WE to Earth will show zero voltage
If the working electrode was continually generating electrons - by whatever means - then it would behave like a classic electrophorus. There will be a measurable voltage between the electrode and a decent earth connection. That is the reason for the test.
Further up the thread I had been asking about such a test with the electrolysed soft ferrocerium rod - as it was behaving oddly, compared to the other test electrodes.
Please do not harm any live cats, trying this.
-
A nice touch was the J-P Biberian's working LEC was aluminium (co-dep) with a copper tube counter electrode. So both of us got a result with Al, - which is not normally considered to be an easy material to hydride. When he gets back to the lab he's going to try it without co-dep as I did.
Thanks - not watched the J-PB presentation yet. Have only seen your marathon from yesterday (well done, btw).
-
Remembering the old film fogging tests from BARC; note that they were using a very small gap, and directly exposing the emulsion. They found that paper would block the 'rays' - but they had no idea what those rays were, or (if electromagnetic) what wavelength they might have been - other than being within the sensitive band range of the film they were using.
EDIT: No see links further down thread. The fogging occurred through (gas porous) paper, but not through glass. This was interpreted as eliminating all UV - but glass actually blocks the VUV band, and ions could still migrate through paper.
-
Young scientists. Target group would be those graduate students considering a Thesis to pursue in Condensed Matter Physics. Most speak the language of "spin tech" easily. The language and concepts of advanced 'cold fusion' i.e. Solid State Atomic Energy Technologies.
Unfortunately, this is the group that have already drunk gallons of the "special" Kool Aid. That was the point of my anecdote, above. I don't think that young graduate student was stupid - he was just very well-versed in the current dogma.
Never forget that the CF wave of the late 80s came out of the work of electrochemists - and not from physicists.
-
It seems VUV (Vacuum UV) is absorbed by atmospheric gases - which is why they don't reach the surface of the earth (and hence their name). So their range is very short in air - and they are also blocked by most "light transparent" materials - such as glass (e.g. a thin glass microscope slide!)
It sounds like a good candidate photon band, as it may be difficult to detect, but also causes mild gas ionisation....
This company makes relevant detectors. Other products might be available from other companies.
-
For reference, this would be in the transition region of x-ray to "vacuum UV". (150 eV would be about 8 nm)
-
I noticed that on magicsound 's slides (also mentioned on his PDF), the lowest energy photons that could have been detected would have been around 150 eV (and there were none detected from the Frank Gordon wire mesh sample).
It seems that the lowest ionisation energy for both hydrogen and oxygen are around 14 eV, in the far UV band (around 88.5 nm)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…_for_lower-energy_photons
So, what would be the easiest way to detect photons at that end of the UV band? (Fluorescence?)
-
The author of the paper refutes this version of the story with survey evidence, shows that many geologists were unaware of the newest literature, and that continental drift prevailed simply because the demographics changed.
Interestingly, this seems to go against the conclusions of this 1988 study: Age Differences in the Reception of New Scientific Theories: The Case of Plate Tectonics Theory
Quote
Explanations as to why age and receptivity might co-vary have focused on motivational factors that reinforce attachments to existing knowledge, overlooking the possibility that the resources which scientists accrue during their careers may well buffer the increased intellectual risk taken in advocating speculative theories. Older scientists may therefore be better positioned than their younger colleagues to speak out earlier in support of new but controversial theories. Age may thus have contradictory effects on receptivity.If the example of CF research in the late 80s / early 90s is used - it is interesting to note that the main proponents were mostly elderly, and more experienced, researchers. They were certainly not the "eager young scientists, with radical new ideas" that is meant to be the progressive group implied in the often quoted aphorism by Max Planck.
Personal anecdote:
In the late 1990s, a young (online) acquaintance of mine was studying for a PhD in Condensed Matter Physics. During one week he came up to stay at the halls of a university near me, for a joint UK-wide gathering of graduate students in the field - so I arranged to meet up with him in a local pub one evening. As well as being generally sociable, I was also curious as to his attitude to "unconventional" nuclear theories, such as low energy transmutation, free proton/deuteron behaviour within metal latices, quantum tunnelling, nucleus excitation, etc (all standard LENR fare).
To my utter amazement he seemed to be totally incapable of thinking beyond anything that he'd been taught, "as fact", whilst he'd been an undergraduate. This was someone who had a first class honours degree in Physics from Imperial College, London - and his pursuit of a PhD was meant to show that he could carry out original research, and was capable of applying original thought. Nice chap though he was, I could see no evidence that he was able to entertain any thoughts that might be beyond a narrow set of "learned rules". Nevertheless, he still subsequently obtained his PhD (although he later emigrated, to work in a totally non-science field altogether).
If this chap had stayed within academia, he might well have been able to teach undergraduates all the things he had learned - and/or might also have been able to continue postdoc research in a conscientious and perfunctory manner, whilst climbing the seniority ladder. He could have very well ended up in a position where his opinion as an "expert witness" could have been called upon by politicians or industrialists. What answers would he have given if asked whether the claims of CF/LENR proponents should be taken seriously?
-
Even the Wardenclyffe was LENR related
Sorry to sound like a boring old skeptic, but do you have any properly documented historical references for that claim? (i.e. not a verbal statement from an mfmp video.)
Unfortunately, there have been far too many layers of unsubstantiated rumour and fantasy added to the Tesla legend, over the years.
Sadly, I wouldn't even be surprised if someone claimed that Nikola Tesla was a time traveller who secretly arrived here from the incredibly technologically advanced civilisation of ancient Mesopotamia...
-
That was an interesting interview Alan Smith - thanks.
There was some mention of the mysterious "Swedish Stone" that was often said to be a vital component in Moray's earlier machines.
There is an article available (link below) on the Wayback Machine, taken from a talk by a chap named John Moreland - who carried out some research on the Moray devices. The talk appears to be from about 20 years ago.
Moreland seems to have collaborated with Rodney Sego (another investigator, mentioned further up this thread). They even took out a joint patent on a device inspired by their research - based on the rather odd idea that a radioactive wire amplifies any current running through it. I wish the world was that simple...
Moreland had his own hypothesis for the origin of the Swedish Stone - which seems rather far-fetched, to me.
I actually suspect that the Swedish Stone never actually existed - and was simply a convenient tale told by Moray to stop investigators getting close to the real concept behind his machine.
Anyway, here is the article:
