Another title for this: Possible convergence of "cold fusion/LENR" devices and EM (FE) devices. We'll see.
As some of you know, I have a foot in both the "cold fusion" CF and the "FE" camps. Very interesting developments came out at the ICCF-17 meeting in Korea earlier this month... and some results shared by a friend who is a scientist working in the CF area with a team at a national lab. I feel I can share his results here quietly; not sure what all the team shared at ICCF-17 yet. But he sent me exciting data.
Look -- he was a GREAT SKEPTIC of CF, so I will call him G -- and now he has these results.
I will keep his identity quiet for now, until I find out what he disclosed publicly.
Can we discuss the science? There's a lot that neither he nor I understand about these effects.
Let me begin by saying that most in the CF field have given up the notion that the "anomalous xs heat" (call it axh) is due to FUSION -- because there are not COMMENSURATE fusion products, such as neutrons, in sufficient numbers. So the term "cold fusion" for the xsh is a rather unfortunate relic of history.
You know, I told Fleischmann that he should drop the claim that his axh was "cold fusion", but he stuck with it for years - and finally admitted that it was NOT FUSION. He passed away earlier this year, RIPeace.
Confusing at first, because there IS a SMALL dd fusion component going on. (The small dd-fusion effect we reported in Nature; confirmed in later experiments in Japan and Europe.) But with the axh, which is just sporadically observed still in electrolytic cells, there are NO associated neutrons or gammas in SUFFICIENT NUMBERS.
Hence, two separate effects.
So what causes the axh? I'm postulating that the axh observed is in fact what we've been searching for -- freedom energy.
I'm going to call it "anomalous electroweak energy" aee to cover bases, excluding the STRONG (nuclear) force which is involved in fusion and fission, but not excluding EM or weak-force effects. The effect probably is not due to gravity; so aee should cover it.
Saving time hopefully -- with the abbreviations, I'm postulating that axh = aee = fe, and NOT the strong force, that is, not fusion or fission.
Data follows.
So the "Great Skeptic" G and his team at a national-funded lab began earnest studies using electrolytic cells and D2-gas loading also, in 2009. I should say that the gas-loaded cells (we built these for cf studies back in 1986ff; I'm quite certain the BYU team was the first with D2 gas loaded looking for these effects) give smaller axh results, but from the data, more CONSISTENT axh episodes. Nevertheless, I will focus on the electrolytic cells because this is where the larger effects are seen -- with correlated RF signals!
What a great idea -- to put an RF pick-up coil on one of the wires going into the cell. Below is the set-up.
DATA -- tell me this is not exciting?
Running with a Pd 90%- Rh 10% cathode, observe the anomalous xs heat axh episodes in the data.
Then, in another run, he finds two axh episodes and shows the RF spectrum which they acquired -- RF correlated with axh!
Yes, G (the great skeptic) is claiming 40x, meaning 40 times more output energy in the form of heat, than input electrical energy!
Consider -- DC input to the cell, and RF output (especially strong around 430 KHz) -- where did the RF come from?
This smacks of FE to me.
I'm GUESSING some sort of diode/transistor effects accompanying oxidation -- which he says is important, empirically.
OK -- here's the data. G gave me NO commentary. So let's see if we can figure out where the RF is coming from:
(PS -- this is the pith of his data. I gotta run... )
With only 1 mA going through the cell, the power input graph hugs the zero line on your 1st picture on post #2.
However there are a number of large increases in input power during or at the initiation of an event.
How can we account for these large increases in Pin? Is there some type of interference with the current sensing going on?
430kHz AC induction into the current sense resistor would not register unless the current preamp was overloaded and clipping. We always stress the use of non-inductive current sense resistors, which are rather easy to get.
This could cause the apparent increase in input power shown on the graph.
Is the power supply set to constant current mode? If so, an increase in resistance of the solution would result in the power supply attempting to raise the applied voltage to keep the 1mA constant. Power input would go up accordingly.
Alternately, if the power supply was set to constant voltage and the voltage was adjusted to provide the initial 1mA, the solution may have become temporarily more conductive during an event , thus increasing power input.
What voltage is required across the cell to produce 1mA of current flowing through the cell?
Even though this observation does not in any way negate the possibility of excess output energy, it is important to nail this down, because changes in cell impedance can cause input power fluctuations.
Perhaps it would be better to drive the cell from a constant power source.
Having only read about your head to head research regarding CF against other establishments, i'm stepping in here not knowing the process.
Could I ask what is the broad circuit composition and is it indeed possible to do anything at all in terms of an offshoot 'workbench' version ?
Is the RF not pulse frequency ? Many blocking oscillators can be picked up on AM radios as a 'click click' interference and at 510kHz switching speed, the received data from the coil could have that derivation ? It would hinge on whether any coils are used, to produce any backspike anywhere.
Again, sorry about not having a clue :-[ very interesting results for sure.
Thanks for comments -- starting with Slider:
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2012.08.30, 19:23:43
Having only read about your head to head research regarding CF against other establishments, i'm stepping in here not knowing the process.
My challenge to F-P back in 1989 was this: Whatever you have, it's not dd-fusion. F finally conceded this a few years ago. No one seems to get any word from Pons, for several years now. I did not believe in their xs heat claims either, at the time; but I believe G's claims as he is a very careful physicist. I've been to his lab... Frankly, I was surprised to hear that he had picked up this research so vigorously; but glad he did. He said that they see ZERO nuclear products with these heat bursts. And he agrees -- the xs heat is NOT due to FUSION. However, he said they have done relatively very few H2O runs... I requested that he do these! Predicting he would see xs heat with the H instead of the D...
QuoteCould I ask what is the broad circuit composition and is it indeed possible to do anything at all in terms of an offshoot 'workbench' version ?
Excellent question -- I will do some probing. These guys are at a big lab, just trickling out data at this time; so no promises.
QuoteIs the RF not pulse frequency ? Many blocking oscillators can be picked up on AM radios as a 'click click' interference and at 510kHz switching speed, the received data from the coil could have that derivation ? It would hinge on whether any coils are used, to produce any backspike anywhere.
There is a coiled anode in the cell, but the inductance would be small. But the RF could be pulsed, AFAIK -- good point.
Good questions, Ion -
Quote from: ION on 2012.08.30, 19:18:21
With only 1 mA going through the cell, the power input graph hugs the zero line on your 1st picture on post #2.
However there are a number of large increases in input power during or at the initiation of an event.
How can we account for these large increases in Pin? Is there some type of interference with the current sensing going on?
430kHz AC induction into the current sense resistor would not register unless the current preamp was overloaded and clipping. We always stress the use of non-inductive current sense resistors, which are rather easy to get.
This could cause the apparent increase in input power shown on the graph.
Is the power supply set to constant current mode? If so, an increase in resistance of the solution would result in the power supply attempting to raise the applied voltage to keep the 1mA constant. Power input would go up accordingly.
Alternately, if the power supply was set to constant voltage and the voltage was adjusted to provide the initial 1mA, the solution may have become temporarily more conductive during an event , thus increasing power input.
What voltage is required across the cell to produce 1mA of current flowing through the cell?
Even though this observation does not in any way negate the possibility of excess output energy, it is important to nail this down, because changes in cell impedance can cause input power fluctuations.
Perhaps it would be better to drive the cell from a constant power source.
These are excellent points. I will try to find out. I'm sure you noticed that their spectrum analyzer was hooked to the RF pickup coil. Can you point me to "non-inductive current sense resistors," so that I can pass something specific along to G as a friendly gesture, at the same time hopefully getting some answers?
Here is one of many sources for non-inductive resistors:
http://www.caddock.com/Online_catalog/power/power.html
At the power levels shown, you don't have to use anything too exotic. Main point is to avoid a wirewound inductive style resistor as it will be a pickup coil for the RF 430 kHz.
I wind power shunts from Manganin wire in a non-inductive manner. Alternately a slug of carbon (as in a carbon composition resistor) will be non-inductive.
Metal film resistors will also be preferred because of their higher stability over carbon comps. At very high frequencies however the spiral cutting of the metal film to trim the resistance value can add a tiny bit of inductance, but this won't be a problem at 430kHz.
Best to use a high a ohmic value to keep the signal to noise in a practical range e.g. a 1 ohm current shunt
@ 1 mA will only yield only a millivolt of signal, whereas a 100 ohm shunt at 1mA gives 100 mV of signal, a bit more above ambient noise.
For this application, I would use something around 1000 ohms, giving a healthy 1 volt of signal @1mA, well above the ambient noise.
If you could supply more info about the actual excitation current production method, we can comment further.
Basically all I have right now is a .pdf file made from a series of .ppt slides. These slides from near the end may prove helpful (below).
In particular, note the oxide formation on the cathode surface that correlates with xs heat production -- and I understand with RF production. So this oxide formation is a key. Let us think -- how could this lead to RF production?
@PhysicsProf
QuoteIn particular, note the oxide formation on the cathode surface that correlates with xs heat production -- and I understand with RF production. So this oxide formation is a key. Let us think -- how could this lead to RF production?
It may help to know I have made DIY electrolytic capacitors and diodes with this same oxide layer process and this also produces a specific voltage theshold which is not present prior to oxidation. The rate of change of current across the theshold can easily produce oscillations in the RF region and beyond because conductance increases above the theshold which then produces a current and the current produces forces which evolve to increase resistance choking the current thus producing oscillations at the theshold.
Google "Mason jar rectifier".
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.08.31, 05:40:18
@PhysicsProf
It may help to know I have made DIY electrolytic capacitors and diodes with this same oxide layer process and this also produces a specific voltage theshold which is not present prior to oxidation. The rate of change of current across the theshold can easily produce oscillations in the RF region and beyond because conductance increases above the theshold which then produces a current and the current produces forces which evolve to increase resistance choking the current thus producing oscillations at the theshold.
Google "Mason jar rectifier".
Thanks, AC. I did google as you suggested; I'm climbing the learning curve. I recall vids of people making home-made diodes using oxide layers.
Henry Moray in the 1920's-1950's fiddled with his "Swedish stone" that he acquired in Sweden, perhaps some kind of diode...? Harvey Fletcher Sr. (a well-known physicist who invented stereo-sound) visited Moray's "anomalous power" machine and studied it and wrote an affadavit saying he could find no hidden power source such as batteries.
Next question -- is there a way to produce the active oxide layer in such a way that repeatability is enhanced? doesn't have to be a "Pons-Fleischmann cell" necessarily, but something similar with two electrodes.
Their main problem in these experiments is that they typically run for many hours before seeing an xs-heat episode. They are learning to trigger events however, with addition of metals (such as nickel) and metal-oxides. But even then, the trigger does not always produce an xs-heat episode.
Also, could a similar process be occurring in a Davey 2-bell cell? Davey used AC current from the mains between his 2 bells in water, rather than DC. His 2 bells become the 2 electrodes, and pre-date P-F by decades!
I and others have tried to replicate Davey -- I see a clear brown residue forming on the bells near the openings, that wipes off with a towel and appears to be oxidation.
Could G use AC (50 or 60 Hz) in light water electrolyte, rather than DC in heavy water electrolyte, and get better reproducibility? You see where I'm headed with this...
This provides an example where I see a possible convergence of these two "separate" fields of research. And if I'm right about this, the cold fusion/LENR advocates are about to learn that xs-heat beyond what is possible by chemistry does NOT necessarily mean that nuclear reactions are involved! This is where Pons-F went wrong IMO, assuming that if the energy release was beyond chemistry, then it MUST be nuclear fusion, dd fusion. But I pointed out to them several times that if it is nuclear dd fusion, there must be dd-fusion products in the appropriate amounts -- and they finally admitted those fusion products (particularly neutrons in large numbers) were NOT there! Also, they refused in spring 1989 to answer the question -- do you see the effect in light water cells? Question raised by Prof. Stephen Koonin of CalTech. They would not answer! (This was at a meeting in Italy which I also attended.)
@PhysicsProf
QuoteHenry Moray in the 1930's-1950's fiddled with his "Swedish stone" that he acquired in Sweden, perhaps some kind of diode...? Harvey Fletcher Sr. (a well-known physicist who invented stereo-sound) visited Moray's "anomalous power" machine and studied it and wrote an affadavit saying he could find no hidden power source such as batteries.
At one point in time I did a great deal of research into T.H.Moray's work and found out what his "Swedish stone" really was, I cannot recall exactly as it was 10 years ago but I have it my research notes. It took me a month or so to track the geography, mining stats, time frame etc.... and I believe the material was white tourmaline quartz.
If you follow Moray's work what he was really looking for was a zero theshold rectifier, zero theshold zero resistance to transform naturally occurring oscillations through multiple stages. It took Moray 30 years to finally get everything right so a little patience is required if we expect to do the same.
Regards
AC
I agree with AC, oxide layers can produce negative resistance effects, thus producing an oscillation. But this particular 430kHz may be of a different nature.
http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/els/zincosc-el.htm
From the slide, looks like they are using a 0.5 ohm shunt resistor, which yields only 0.5 millivolt @1 mA. This signal is rather low, I would opt for a higher value shunt resistor as explained in my prior post.
@Ion
Quoteoxide layers can produce negative resistance effects, thus producing an oscillation. But this particular 430kHz may be of a different nature.
I would agree, the simplest oscillator is a parallel capacitance and a series diode and when the voltage threshold of the diode is crossed it conducts which lowers the voltage on the capacitance which then ceases the conduction of the diode producing repeated cycling or oscillations. This however is not a negative resistance as the resistance has not changed, if resistance is the opposition to motion then a negative resistance would in fact be an acceleration which is not the case. The reason for the oscillations is that the supply voltage is variable causing it to swing above then below the threshold. It's funny that there are so many people who have trouble with oscillators because I can make damn near anything oscillate and most of the time I wish it wouldn't.
I have a suspicion that at the lower voltages of this experiment internal capacitance and line inductance coupled with the oxide layer threshold are causing the oscillations. In which case action and reaction are reversed, the supposed heating effect does not produce oscillations the oscillations produce the effect at the boundary condition of the oxide layer. This is not AC it is pulsed DC, the same pulsed DC I use to run a 12v lead acid battery at 50v using the sulphate layer on the plates as a variable capacitance in series with the plate potential. The sulphate layers can also produce oscillations due to the threshold when biased in series and a battery can in fact act as a series oscillator in itself which is whacked and caused a great deal of confusion when I first saw the effect. It would seem I have a way of making things go terribly wrong which sometimes ends up making things go right, such is life.
One of the problems in electrochemistry is maintaining a constant power input to the cell.
From the diagram supplied, we see current sense resistors in the anode and cathode. What we do not see is a measurement of voltage across the cell. This measurement must have been done because the graph shows "power input".
OK, so the current is adjusted to 1mA from a constant current power supply and we think all is well. Or it is maintained under servo control from a computer, we just try to maintain the 1 mA across the sense resistors.
What happens when the cell impedance starts to rise, perhaps due to bubbles or oxides forming around the anode and cathode?
Power delivered to the cell (voltage x current) can increase rapidly as voltage rises to maintain the 1mA setpoint.
I recommend constant power drive. In addition to current through the cell, Voltage across the cell should be monitored. Voltage x Current should be computed and used as the servo feedback to the cell power input control set point.
The diagram also shows platinum RTD's on the current sense resistors. I have no idea why a measurement of the temperature of these resistors is important. There would be a barely detectable temperature rise over ambient in these resistors @ 1mA (0.5 milliwatts of dissipation).
If these are thin film RTD's all is well, but if they are wirewound RTD's these would act as pickup coils for ambient EM noise and RF, unless they were non-inductively wound and shielded.
Just saying Hi
Prof Jones invited me here. It will take me a while to catch up and understand the quest. I have played with negative resistance diodes, electrolysis using AC, oscillators, etc... What I am good at is approaching problems from unorthodox angles and stumbling onto something, 3D thinking, reverse processing from an end point to start point... let me know what I can help with.
Lynx
Quote from: Lynx on 2012.09.02, 13:20:51
Just saying Hi
Prof Jones invited me here. It will take me a while to catch up and understand the quest. I have played with negative resistance diodes, electrolysis using AC, oscillators, etc... What I am good at is approaching problems from unorthodox angles and stumbling onto something, 3D thinking, reverse processing from an end point to start point... let me know what I can help with.
Lynx
Welcome, Lynx! Just what we need is creative thinking and "reverse processing" IMO.
Here's what we have:
1. Significant xs heat (around 10 - 70 kJoules and 40x input power) in rare episodes, triggered by addition of Ni, NiSO4 and CoSO4.
2. These episodes are accompanied by RF generation, especially around 430 KHz in one cell (2 episodes). DC input at low current (about 1 mA).
3. xs heat accompanied by OXIDES on the surface of the cathode.
4. Detailed requirements for xs heat episodes remain obscure -- see below.
5. NO nuclear emissions observed, neutrons, gammas etc.
Note that Rossi with his light-water-Nickel xs heat claims recently said there were no nuclear radiations with the heat.
But he claims high reproducibility -- but keeping details secret (proprietary...?)
Now, please read this from another slide sent by my scientist friend, then ideas:
My friend G uses heavy water (D2O), he admitted that they have done very few "controls" using H2O. I urged him to try H2O - sporadic episodes make it difficult to be sure H2O won't "work" -- I'm guessing it will!
G and most in that field are still using the old Pons-Fl paradigm that 'the xs heat is too large to be chemical in origin and therefore MUST be nuclear in origin." I'm suggesting we can make faster progress -- having seen "anomalous xs heat" results but NO NUCLEAR products, if we postulate instead that what is seen is a form of Tesla-Moray-Davey energy... giving credit to the early pioneers who evidently saw "xs heat or energy" but did not call it "cold fusion" or nuclear!
The Davey device with two metal bells immersed in water and run from the mains comes close imo to the CURRENT work on the "Pons-Fl cells" -- both have electrodes and water-based electrolyte and both claim to see xs heat!
Now, one could try to replicate the P-F cells, again, with Palladium, now Pd-Rhodium cathodes. Ever priced these cathodes??
I'm postulating we can go to nickel (or other cheap metal) cathodes, add oxide layer in spots at least -using a propane torch - and after a while, put NiSO4 in the light water -- and look for xs heat using temperature-rise in the water.
AND - we need to look for RF emissions. Any ideas on how to do THAT cheaply? pick-up coil and frequency analyzer is great, but is there a cheaper way (at first)? AM radio?
See? still the trial-and-error "Edison approach", but using the PARADIGM OF TESLA, MORAY AND DAVEY... he he he.
:D
I just bought some bumper stickers that say "Tesla > Edison"...
Steve:
Have you any comments on post #14?
Thinking a little more about this, it might be a good idea to test the cell for resonances around 430kHz by sweeping it from a signal generator.
Might it be possible that the anode or cathode are spiral wound and with the distributed capacitive loading of the DD on the helix is resonant around 430kHz. Shock excitation could also measure the burst frequency if it is inherent to the cell structure. We need more info on cell construction to comment further.
Regarding your desire for a cheap means of measuring the 430kHz signal, a simple HiQ tuned tank circuit @430kHz/ rectifier 1N34A diode/capacitor should give a large measurable DC signal should a nearby 430kHz excite it. This can easily drive a data acquisition system.
AM radio starts at 550kHz, so maybe try detuning the local oscillator (load the local oscillator tuning capacitor) to get down 80kHz more, check with a signal generator. Some radios with a longwave band might cover this. The downside of using an AM radio is lack of a signal output that is available to drive data acquisition system unless the radio has an "S" meter. The pure carrier wave will not show at the speaker unless there are audible modulation components.
There is a website I use for inspiration - sparkbanbuzz. I am sure many of you have read through his experiments. I have experimented a lot with the "negative resistance" ideas. You can observe some surprising results.
Here is an excerpt I find very intriguing. Orange colored light, RF emmissions.....
http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/els/borax-el.htm (http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/els/borax-el.htm)
"Negative Resistance.
I have observed an interesting N type negative resistance effect that happens only when the tip of a very sharp aluminum electrode is just barely touching the top surface of the solution. The curve trace is shown below.
(http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/els/boraxnr2.jpg)
There is a bright but tiny orange glow at the point of contact but I don't believe it is the same phenomena that causes the rectifier glow because in this case, the glow happens when the aluminum is biased negative. With the rectifier, the glow is generated when the aluminum is positively biased.
This generates a lot of rf noise as the large misty area at the right part of the curve suggests. Having done just a little experimenting, I have not yet heard a real clear tone generated from this device but I can hear noise in a nearby am receiver up to the receiver's limit of 30 mhz.
Borax Solution Negative Resistance.
An interesting N type negative resistance effect that happens only when the tip of a very sharp aluminum electrode is just barely touching the top surface of the solution. This generates a lot of rf noise as the large misty area at the right part of the curve suggests. "
Ion -- I have asked scientist G several questions that correspond to your queries -- if he answers. Here's what I asked; if you have specific further questions pls let me know:
Quote[to G]
Fascinating data!
May I ask a few questions?
Looking at your data, example attached:
1. Why does Pinput vary? that is, what controls Pinput -- are you operating at constant current?
2. What happens when the cell impedance starts to rise, perhaps due to bubbles or oxides forming around the anode and cathode?
3. Why use a 0.5ohm sensing resistor when a larger resistance (say 5 ohms) would give a much better voltage reading (compared to noise)?
4. The RTD's used with the sensing resistors -- are these thin-film or wire-wound RTD's? Also, are the resistors wire-wound? (Wire-wound may result in undesired RF pick-up.)
5. Do you have a diagram of the innards of your cell? Number of windings on the anode and diameter of the cathode, for example?
The example I chose was the 40x... data shown below.
Lynx -- what experiments can a guy like me do in the home lab to better understand "negative resistance"?
I sent this email to another physicist friend of mine just now; it may clarify things a bit:
QuoteWhat I'm postulating is that there are at least two activities going on,
1 Low-level LENR reactions, such as the BYU team observed, but not commensurate with the xs heat.
2. xs heat due to Tesla-Moray-Davey effects; not-cold-fusion. I have learned that Peter Davey actually secured a New Zealand patent for his two-bell device in 1944, which has two electrodes which are immersed in water with minerals (i.e., electrolyte), and he claimed xs heat. His work was long before that of Pons and F...
Steve
Of these separate effects, the latter is the more interesting IMO, and may lead to useful power much sooner if we do it right. Is there a better name than "Tesla-Moray-Davey effects; not-cold-fusion" ? What would you call it? Radiant energy has been co-opted by physicists since Tesla and refers to energy associated with light. "Free energy" conjures up a violation of conservation laws; also "perpetual motion" -- those are out, IMO.
PS -- did TESLA himself actually observe these effects?
Prof and Team,
Here's an experiment you can try. Take the Lynx Joule Lamp circuit we made and connect the leads to a negative resistance setup.
Use baking soda in water, clip a HV lead onto a piece of galvanized steel submerged in a small beaker or glass jar. Suspend a piece of aluminum wire over the jar and just touch the surface of the solution. Use a piece of styrofoam across the jar and push the aluminum wire through to just touch the surface. Try several aluminum wires to increase the conductivity. Barely touch the surface and you may notice some capillary effect.
You will need to run this setup for several hours to treat the anode and cathode.
Now vary the input voltage to the LJL to its lowest level while still maintaining oscillation. Note the temperature of the water, frequency, and Pin.
What I expect? You will hear and sense a pronounced vibration coming from the jar. You will see a haze coming from the surface. You may note tiny orange flashes with the lights in the room dimmed. And you may note a temperature rise of the solution.
You may need to insulate the jar from the environment to get good readings of course.
Two things are going on, the solution is vibrating, and an incomplete electrolysis is happening as well. Its possible at certain frequencies the solution is more prone to electrolysis, and the breaking of the molecular bond accelerates the breaking of adjacent bonds. This could be frictional heating in excess of what the electricity alone could do.
Name? We need to observe something first before we name it. How about - "Molecular Bumper Cars" or "Whack a mole"
Quote from: Lynx on 2012.09.05, 02:11:05
Prof and Team,
Here's an experiment you can try. Take the Lynx Joule Lamp circuit we made and connect the leads to a negative resistance setup.
Use baking soda in water, clip a HV lead onto a piece of galvanized steel submerged in a small beaker or glass jar. Suspend a piece of aluminum wire over the jar and just touch the surface of the solution. Use a piece of styrofoam across the jar and push the aluminum wire through to just touch the surface. Try several aluminum wires to increase the conductivity. Barely touch the surface and you may notice some capillary effect.
You will need to run this setup for several hours to treat the anode and cathode.
Now vary the input voltage to the LJL to its lowest level while still maintaining oscillation. Note the temperature of the water, frequency, and Pin.
What I expect? You will hear and sense a pronounced vibration coming from the jar. You will see a haze coming from the surface. You may note tiny orange flashes with the lights in the room dimmed. And you may note a temperature rise of the solution.
You may need to insulate the jar from the environment to get good readings of course.
Two things are going on, the solution is vibrating, and an incomplete electrolysis is happening as well. Its possible at certain frequencies the solution is more prone to electrolysis, and the breaking of the molecular bond accelerates the breaking of adjacent bonds. This could be frictional heating in excess of what the electricity alone could do.
Name? We need to observe something first before we name it. How about - "Molecular Bumper Cars" or "Whack a mole"
OK -- I'll give it a try! thanks for the suggestion, Lynx -- just the sort of thing I was looking for to boost understanding.
Another biggie today -- I rec'd an email response from my scientist friend, with interspersed answers.
Ion -- several for your questions; lets try to understand (he is a bit terse as usual):
> Fascinating data!
> May I ask a few questions?
>
> Looking at your data, example attached:
>
> 1. Why does Pinput vary? that is, what controls Pinput -- are you operating at constant current?
Operation is at constant power. at 12 hours the power was increased by us to try and recover the effect. The increase reflects something in the system that changes when the excess heat is present. We have some ideas but nothing definitive.
PP note -- I'm adding underlining. In one of his slides, he notes that "excess voltage" is observed accompanying xs heat episodes...
>
>
> 2. What happens when the cell impedance starts to rise, perhaps due to bubbles or oxides forming around the anode and cathode?
We have some ideas but nothing definitive - a very active research area for us
>
> 3. Why use a 0.5ohm sensing resistor when a larger resistance (say 5 ohms) would give a much better voltage reading (compared to noise)?
We do not want to perturb the system so the resistance is kept low. Also, the signal to noise for 0.5 ohm is very high so there are no worries there.
>
> 4. The RTD's used with the sensing resistors -- are these thin-film or wire-wound RTD's? Also, are the resistors wire-wound? (Wire-wound may result in undesired RF pick-up.)
The RTD's and resistors are not wire wound, they are solid state. The purpose of the RTD's was to see if we were missing RF energy input. The resistors would see RF whereas a DC current measurement would not, depending upon the power supply's pass band. So if the RTD's heated up when the power supply did not indicate a current increase, it could be attributed to RF entering the cell. Since the RTD's agreed with the power supply measurement, there was no RF entering the cell which gives us more confidence that the heat is real.
>
> 5. Do you have a diagram of the innards of your cell? Number of windings on the anode and diameter of the cathode, for example?
It will be in the paper. planer geometry, two Pt foils with the Pd cathode in the middle (1cmx4cmx50 microns) spacing about 2-3 mm between foils
PP -- thus, two anode-foils, on either side of the Pd-Rh cathode. NO coil around the cathode as in Pons-F cell. This looks a little more like the Davey - bell system geometry IMHO...
I added one more question later today:
6 - In the electrolytic experiments, what nuclear reaction products did you look for? (I understand no nuclear products were seen, as of yet, but not sure what all you looked for.)
no gammas or neutrons and no activation of the cathodes after heat events. working on low energy x-rays but not there yet.
PP: See? NO nuclear products thus far... I'm saying, it ain't nuclear! (probably) What is it then? we might call it a Tesla-Davey effect, after two early pioneers in this field... what do you think about that?
Steve:
Thanks for getting some of those questions answered.
I can take issue with one or two of the answers, but not at this time as these are fine points and would only deflect focus.
It is more important to concentrate on details of cell construction and a more complete description of the test setup, equipment used etc so that replication is assured..
Quote from: ION on 2012.09.05, 12:42:39
Steve:
Thanks for getting some of those questions answered.
I can take issue with one or two of the answers, but not at this time as these are fine points and would only deflect focus.
It is more important to concentrate on details of cell construction and a more complete description of the test setup, equipment used etc so that replication is assured..
I agree, Ion. My friend is evidently struggling with understanding the increase of input power (seen in the plots of data) from a "constant power" source -- you hit the nail on the head with your question. At another time, he briefly referred to "excess voltage" during an xs heat episode; but he wasn't very specific about that.
I really found his brief description of the cell and "no nuclear products" intriguing:
QuoteIt will be in the paper. planer geometry, two Pt foils with the Pd cathode in the middle (1cmx4cmx50 microns) spacing about 2-3 mm between foils
...
no gammas or neutrons and no activation of the cathodes after heat events. working on low energy x-rays but not there yet.
I look forward to his paper, a standard scientist's approach -- but this can take months, even years. We can't wait IMO. And so I'll try Lynx's ideas.
So where can we get some platinum and palladium foils at a reasonable price.
Do we have any wealthy benefactors on board?
http://www.goodfellow.com/E/Palladium-Foil.html
http://www.goodfellow.com/E/Platinum-Foil.html
He says "Pd" for short, but the data plots state that the cathode is actually 90%Pd and 10% Rhodium.
If you can find off-the-shelf foils like that, pls let me know.
I'm thinking I'll go with the hypothesis that the effect occurs because of the addition of NiSO4 (which is cheap) -- he says this sometimes triggers the effect; it appears a necessary if not sufficient condition. So I'm looking at oxidized nickel electrodes in light water, with NiSO4 added to distilled light (H) water, following the Tesla-Davey path rather than the LENR path which he follows.
The goals are the same: REPRODUCIBLE EXCESS HEAT.
I've got a supply of the following metal and metal alloys. These are thermocouple grade relatively high purity.
Chromel: Nickel 90%, Chromium 10%
Alumel: Nickel 95% Al 2% Mn 2% Si 1%
Constantan: Nickel 45.00% Copper 55%
Nichrome: 80% Nickel 20% Chromium
Electrolytic pure copper
Iron: 99.5+%
And a few assorted others (Karma alloy, Alloy#11, #19, #20, Manganin). Do you feel any of these are useful for a cell of the type you would like to experiment with?
Platinum/Rhodium alloys can be had from thermocouple suppliers as it is used in R,S, and B types. I don't stock those types.
Hmmm... Alumel and Chromel sound pretty good to me:
QuoteChromel: Nickel 90%, Chromium 10%
Alumel: Nickel 95% Al 2% Mn 2% Si 1%
Thanks, Ion. Cost for foils about the size he used?
Meanwhile, last year / early this year I started experiments of the Davey-bell type. Turns out I used NICKEL crucibles as the bells in one paired-case. I may try that again (I did not see confirmed xs heat at the time) -- but adding NiSO4 to distilled water, instead of using tap water. Also, I was using mains 120V input. I should go to DC or pulsed DC.
One straightforward way to get pulsed-DC from the grid is to place a diode in the line... I've started experiments along those lines this week; also in response to input via phone call from a friend interested in Davey devices in particular.
(Again I ask -- are the "LENR" cells and Davey cells really the same au fond? Both have electrodes in water-electrolyte and both claim xs heat .)
As always, we are going to have to measure Pinput and Poutput accurately. The friend asked that I compare power output running loads from:
A- the 120V- grid;
and
B - half-wave rectified using a diode in series with the grid.
I'm uploading a vid which will show the set-up -- its 57% uploaded as I post this.
Test 1: Adding a 1N5408 diode in series with a 40-Watt light bulb. DSO shows half-wave gets through as expected. Three power meters show 23-24Watts, about half the 43 W measured with full grid input power. However, the light output, measured via the light box and its light meter, drops by a factor of nearly 4, 1/2-squared.
I don't understand -- the power falls to half, that makes sense with half the wave getting through the diode, but the light output from the bulb drops to one-fourth (rather than dropping by half). If I put this bulb in the water and measure temp-rise, will this simple calorimeter show 23 W output through the bulb? or just 11W? Where does all the power go, if not into light production? heat somewhere?
I may try this -- but immersing a bulb in water is a bit hazardous...
Test 2: Adding a 1N5408 diode in series with a 300-Watt immersion heater. Here, I measured the temp rise of the water, 22.0C to 27.8C in about 4 minutes. Delta-temp = 5.8 C.
1.5 liters H20 = 1500 g.
Qout = 4.19 * 1500g * 5.8C = 36450 Joules.
Power in, read by the Kill-A-Watt (KAW) meter, 0.01 kW-h = 10W-hours = 10*3600J = 36000 Joules, very good agreement with the calorimeter (water-temp-rise) measurement.
This meter read and the other KAW meter read about 150-152W during the run, half the rated 300W of the immersion heater.
150 J/s * 4min*60s = 36000J, good agreement.
So that says half the power in, heats the water at the expected half-power rate.The Wanf meter did not do well for this, reading 38W for the half-wave driven immersion heater rather than 150 W. It works just fine with the heater running straight off the grid, full-wave.
I checked the Wanf vs KAW meters for various light bulbs, with the HALF_WAVE input, and found good agreement on watt-readings for 25W (both read 14.5 watts), 40W bulbs (both read 23-24 watts); and not bad agreement for 60W light bulbs (31W on Wanf, 34 on KAW).
For 75, 90, and 100W, the Wanf fell behind, staying at around 36-38 W reading while the KAW meters read around 56% of the rated wattage (note the voltage here is about 122V, so higher wattage than rated is expected).
Can we make sense of this? do we trust the redundant watt-meters, at least up to 60 W loads? should we go to voltmeters and ammeters? the question is -- how do we measure input power accurately?
The water calorimetry makes good sense, but...
Why does the light output drop by nearly 4 when the power is cut by the diode by a factor of just 2?
The first vid, with diode in series, is up: http://youtu.be/ZqpC4XBOe28
The second vid is almost uploaded fully, no diode, http://youtu.be/5RRzvrcJahs
Shows some of the equipment I'm using. I'm wondering if the light meter has a hard time with flickering -- there is noticeable flickering in the bulb with the diode in place.
PS -- same basic result with a 25W bulb -- all three watt-meters read about 14W input, but the light output is 1/4th (with the diode) -- compared to the light output straight off the mains.
Prof:
QuoteWhy does the light output drop by nearly 4 when the power is cut by the diode by a factor of just 2?
This probably has to do with the pass band of your light meter. As the bulb goes towards infra red,visible luminosity drops of drastically, however the total energy radiated would be 1/2 power (vs) 1/4 luminosity.
"The radiant luminous efficacy (LER) is the ratio of the visible light flux emitted (the luminous flux) to the total power radiated
over all wavelengths. The source luminous efficacy (LES) is the ratio of the
visible light flux emitted (the luminous flux) to the total power input to the source, such as a lamp."
"At temperatures where the tungsten filament of an ordinary light bulb remains solid (below 3683 kelvins), most of its emission is in the infrared"
What type of light meter are you using?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy
We have also found that the WANF and Kiill A Watt meters do not read correctly with 1/2 wave rectified output load, even with a pure resistive load that is linear.
Quote from: ION on 2012.09.06, 00:10:01
Prof:
This probably has to do with the pass band of your light meter. As the bulb goes towards infra red,visible luminosity drops of drastically, however the total energy radiated would be 1/2 power (vs) 1/4 luminosity....
"At temperatures where the tungsten filament of an ordinary light bulb remains solid (below 3683 kelvins), most of its emission is in the infrared"
Yes, I find this is a reasonable explanation.
QuoteWhat type of light meter are you using?
LX1010B = http://www.amazon.com/Light-Meter-LX1010B-Luxmeter-display/dp/B000JWUT6O
QuoteWe have also found that the WANF and Kiill A Watt meters do not read correctly with 1/2 wave rectified output load, even with a pure resistive load that is linear.
Ah-- how did you determine this? I have above provided data that checks the KAW meter (kW-h) with temp rise of water (Q in Joules) and for a pure resistive load -- an immersion heater. Quoting from my post earlier today,
Test 2: Adding a 1N5408 diode in series with a 300-Watt immersion heater. Here, I measured the temp rise of the water, 22.0C to 27.8C in about 4 minutes. Delta-temp = 5.8 C.
1.5 liters H20 = 1500 g.
Qout = 4.19 * 1500g * 5.8C = 36450 Joules.
Power in, read by the Kill-A-Watt (KAW) meter, 0.01 kW-h = 10W-hours = 10*3600J = 36000 Joules, very good agreement with the calorimeter (water-temp-rise) measurement.
This meter read and the other KAW meter read about 150-152W during the run, half the rated 300W of the immersion heater.
150 J/s * 4min*60s = 36000J, good agreement.
So that says half the power in, heats the water at the expected half-power rate.
Summary:
Pin (Kill-A-Watt meter) = 36,000 J
Pout (Q via temp rise in water) = 36,450 J
So agreement was within 2% in this measurement.
How do the numbers compare in your measurement with the Kill-A-Watt meter? I would be interested in how "far off" was the KAW meter, by your measure.
Prof:
QuoteHow do the numbers compare in your measurement with the Kill-A-Watt meter? I would be interested in how "far off" was the KAW meter, by your measure.
I was working with Chet on this. We used a one ohm resistor in series with the load and tested full wave and half wave ampere draw by measuring the voltage across the one ohm shunt with a Fluke true rms meter and multiplying by voltage across the load.
We compared the readings with a KW meter. I'll put all data into a spreadsheet as soon as I recheck the numbers.
Quote from: ION on 2012.09.06, 11:21:03
Prof:
I was working with Chet on this. We used a one ohm resistor in series with the load and tested full wave and half wave ampere draw by measuring the voltage across the one ohm shunt with a Fluke true rms meter and multiplying by voltage across the load.
We compared the readings with a KW meter. I'll put all data into a spreadsheet as soon as I recheck the numbers.
Sounds good -- and then we need to reconcile with the data acquired with the water calorimeter. That is, I maintain the water calorimeter provides just as good a "control" test as a Fluke meter reading of amps X voltage across the load.
May I suggest the Ensupra watt meter.(ebay $20 free shipping) It gives 3 digits to the right of the decimal point for kWHr instead of 2 for the KAW meter, thus pushing 1/2 LSD rounding errors to the 1/1000 of a kWHr vs 1/100.
Precision on amps scale is also 00.000, Watts readings include tenths 0000.0
Not sure of the precision of the Wanf on kWHr setting, can't find a manual for it.
I am currently evaluating the Ensupra against the KAW-P3.
Here is the excel file.......now it seems I can't trust my Fluke true rms meter! The readings across the one ohm do not correlate well at all with the KAW data.????? I did not consider a power factor multiplier as it would have made the Fluke readings even worse.
Note that I also tested 2- 100 W lamps in series vs 1- 100 Watt lamp and diode.
In addition I tested with a large variable power resistor set to 3.00 amps
Here is a schematic of my test setup. You can get aluminum wire and a galvanized end cap from a hardware. Any scrap styrofoam will do. Tin or aluminum foil adhered to the styrofoam with 3M super 77 spray adhesive. Push lengths of aluminum wire through the foil and styrofoam, sand the bottom flush when done. Use a digital or analog temp probe under the metal cup and in contact with it to sense temperature changes. Build a blocking oscillator of a Joule thief type or Joule Ringer or Lynx Joule lamp type. Experiment with reversing the HV from the circuit to the galvanized end cap and the aluminum wires. Frequency will be around 90 Khz using an LJL circuit. Adjust voltage in, observe frequency, amp draw, and temperature of solution. You are looking for rapid rise in temperature that wouldn't be expected with small power input.
Quote from: ION on 2012.09.07, 13:54:51
May I suggest the Ensupra watt meter.(ebay $20 free shipping) It gives 3 digits to the right of the decimal point for kWHr instead of 2 for the KAW meter, thus pushing 1/2 LSD rounding errors to the 1/1000 of a kWHr vs 1/100.
Precision on amps scale is also 00.000, Watts readings include tenths 0000.0
Not sure of the precision of the Wanf on kWHr setting, can't find a manual for it.
I am currently evaluating the Ensupra against the KAW-P3.
Here is the excel file.......now it seems I can't trust my Fluke true rms meter! The readings across the one ohm do not correlate well at all with the KAW data.????? I did not consider a power factor multiplier as it would have made the Fluke readings even worse.
Note that I also tested 2- 100 W lamps in series vs 1- 100 Watt lamp and diode.
In addition I tested with a large variable power resistor set to 3.00 amps
I have to agree with your questioning the Fluke results. Remarkable that the KAW meter gives reasonable results whereas the Fluke does not...
My immersion heater resistance is 42 ohms, about the same as your 40 ohm resistor. What I did to check the KAW is to dip the immersion heater into water and run with the diode in series... and the water heating Qheat agreed with the KAW kW-h reading, to within a few percent!I went ahead and purchased the Ensupra meter you suggested; I like redundancy (checking) in measurements.
Thanks for posting your results, Ion, and for being willing to question the Fluke. "If it works, its a fluke!"
Lynx -- just saw your post. Thanks -- will get some galvanized today...
Prof said:
QuoteThanks for posting your results, Ion, and for being willing to question the Fluke. "If it works, its a fluke!"
This is indeed puzzling, I will have to rethink my measurements and results. Also I will check the Fluke 87 against other true rms meters.
I do trust the KAW meter and your test results, however due to the limited precision and roundoff errors in the 0.01kWHr range of the KAW meter, I'm glad you accurately timed the test and used the Joules/seconds method to determine elapsed kWHr's.
Lynx:
Your experiment looks interesting. Have you any logged results of anomalous heat to share?
Ion,
No I haven't done these experiments with this test setup per se. Several months ago I was experimenting with this but I wasn't looking for heat. I did note gas production on the aluminum, and a discernible vibration. I assumed this was "Brown" gas but I didn't explore any further. The reason I am suggesting the foam is for insulation and temperature measurement. I think different metals should be tried but I will try aluminum and galvanized first. I got this idea from the "sparkbangbuzz" website where a borax or baking soda aluminum rectifier is discussed. I was intrigued by the results.
My hunch is that at certain frequencies a pulsed DC of high voltage might be causing heat and an increased voltage due to a fuel cell like recombination of H and O.
Here is my test setup. It is hooked up to a LJL blocking oscillator that puts out high voltage spikes at high frequency. This is not AC, but chopped DC. It happens that the DC bias is about 4.5 volts through H2O with baking soda and is perfect to reverse bias the 2N3055 power transistor. I started with solution temperature of 66.5 F and ran for ten minutes. End temp was 67.4 F. The current draw off a 12.8 volt battery was 1.4 amps but it dropped to .998 amps after ten minutes.
One direction causes bubbling, reverse the HV leads and there is little bubbling. A distinct whine can be heard while it is running. I have read that a coating forms on the aluminum after several hours helping the aluminum to act as a rectifier. We'll see.
Quote from: Lynx on 2012.09.07, 22:47:10
Here is my test setup. It is hooked up to a LJL blocking oscillator that puts out high voltage spikes at high frequency. This is not AC, but chopped DC. It happens that the DC bias is about 4.5 volts through H2O with baking soda and is perfect to reverse bias the 2N3055 power transistor. I started with solution temperature of 66.5 F and ran for ten minutes. End temp was 67.4 F. The current draw off a 12.8 volt battery was 1.4 amps but it dropped to .998 amps after ten minutes.
One direction causes bubbling, reverse the HV leads and there is little bubbling. A distinct whine can be heard while it is running. I have read that a coating forms on the aluminum after several hours helping the aluminum to act as a rectifier. We'll see.
Good stuff, Lynx
Qheat = 4.19 * mass of water in g * (rise in temperature in deg-C).
1 liter = 1000g. (delta deg-F)x5/9 = (delta deg-C)
Then you can compare that with electrical input power, Pinput.
If you decide to post on another forum also , pls let me know so I can follow along there too...
I will quantify variables to grams/ml, centigrade, time, Pinput, frequency. I just wanted to get this put together and verify that it conducts and that the solution acts to maintain the circuit oscillation. It could have pulled too much power and burned out the transistor, or barely pulled enough power to do anything. As GoldyLox says, "its just right!"
What do you make of the no gas production one way, and fierce production the other way round for the HV circuit? Same power draw both ways. Where is the power going when there is no gas production?
Also, am I way off in having this setup be relevant to what you guys are working on? If I am way off, how should it be modified to be closer to what you want?
I'll post a video of it running sometime this weekend so you can hear the gas production and the whine of the frequency.
Maybe have a bench set up and start a new thread for this version.
Because there is limited access to this board it's probably better to keep it all here. O0
It's easy for me to track the group boards that way.
Quote from: Lynx on 2012.09.08, 14:49:32
I will quantify variables to grams/ml, centigrade, time, Pinput, frequency. I just wanted to get this put together and verify that it conducts and that the solution acts to maintain the circuit oscillation. It could have pulled too much power and burned out the transistor, or barely pulled enough power to do anything. As GoldyLox says, "its just right!"
What do you make of the no gas production one way, and fierce production the other way round for the HV circuit? Same power draw both ways. Where is the power going when there is no gas production?
Also, am I way off in having this setup be relevant to what you guys are working on? If I am way off, how should it be modified to be closer to what you want?
I'll post a video of it running sometime this weekend so you can hear the gas production and the whine of the frequency.
Very interesting, Lynx! Isn't the input to your cell essentially AC, from the Lynx-lamp system? If so, it "should" produce gas either way. But if pulsed DC, then the gas should still appear IMO, just H2 and O2 switching electrodes.
This is VERY relevant! and I agree with Peter, pls keep it in this thread.
An electrolytic cell with all the "tricks" we can think of to get it to produce xs heat, on demand. Look, many scientists are now claiming xs heat in their electrolytic cells -- they just cannot get it REPRODUCIBLY. And as my friend says, "no neutrons, no gammas, and no activation of the foils". So while he is beginning to think it is NOT NUCLEAR in origin (this xs heat), we are ALREADY thinking along the not-nuclear lines.
I don't plan on posting anywhere else. I don't plan on starting a new thread unless we think my testing is irrelevant. I am here more to help and throw some practical and not so practical ideas into the mix.
Steve, The output from a blocking oscillator doesn't sine wave positive negative like AC. In this circuit there is a rush of current at intervals in one direction mostly. All we are doing is exchanging amps for voltage. There is a slight AC component to the output but mostly we look at the high voltage spikes. When those spikes move across between anode and cathode we get a reaction or some form of work done. The aluminum forms the cathode of the rectifier and can have in addition a lot of capacitance in the circuit. In my test setup the aluminum has a N type negative resistance effect. The anode can be just about any other metal. Copper isn't so great because it discolors the solution.
Chopping DC into a transformer will always produce equal amounts of energy above and below the "zero" line on your scope.
This is the nature of induction. You can have extremely high voltage low current spikes of one polarity and this will produce a value of energy below the zero line that will be equal to the high voltage spikes so it is a zero sum, but time displaced.
There is never a net DC component on the secondary of a pulsed transformer operated below saturation. Operated into saturation there are certain arrangements that can perform rectification.
Due to the impedance of the cell, the high voltage pulse will be more effective in producing electrolysis than the higher current, low voltage ringback, especially when the cell has rectification capability and is clamping the pulses in one direction.
Examine the voltage output of a blocking oscillator on a scope driving a non-inductive resistive load, and also logging current on another channel, the power into the resistor over one complete cycle should be the same for positive and ringback pulses.
Guys: No problem keeping these subject matters together, I just thought they might get hopelessly entangled and confused.
One of the most important aspects of this research is the CONTROL. For water calorimetry, I have mostly used immersion heaters (one at a time) as the control, immersed in water and measuring the temperature rise for a measured amount of Watt-hours input. I recently purchased and have tested a low-wattage im-heater which was designed for both 220V and 120 V. At 120V in series with a diode, it draws just 62 W, which is nice for comparisons with low-power devices (DUT's).
In general with these im-heaters, the heat rise agrees with the Watt-h input to within about 8%, that is, about 92%+ of the power actually heats the water. Some heat is lost through the walls of the container -- but wrapping this in bubble wrap helps. Often I get 97% heat transfer to the water.
OTOH, Chet recently tried a 60 W bulb in water (brave guy!) and found that only about 60% on the input power actually heated the water. Much of the output power goes into light which does not heat the water, evidently. I prefer the simple resistive-heater as a control, and Chet agrees with me.
I'm glad that people are trying different things and look forward to further input from Lynx.
On my last try I used 200 grams of H2O with sodium bicarbonate in solution. Ran 10 minutes at 10 watt input. Frequency was 1400 hz. Temp went from 17.7 C to 18.7 C
There are lots of other things I can try. I might try less solution and so plates much closer together. I can try higher voltage. This acts like a rectifier or electrolysis depending on how I run the circuit.
Quote from: Lynx on 2012.09.11, 11:10:52
On my last try I used 200 grams of H2O with sodium bicarbonate in solution. Ran 10 minutes at 10 watt input. Frequency was 1400 hz. Temp went from 17.7 C to 18.7 C
There are lots of other things I can try. I might try less solution and so plates much closer together. I can try higher voltage. This acts like a rectifier or electrolysis depending on how I run the circuit.
Good stuff! Does it make a difference in temp rise, depending on run as rectifier or as electrolysis?
Output Qheat = 4.19 * mass of water in g * (rise in temperature in deg-C).
= 838 Joules.
Input = 10 W x 600s = 6000J
Losses somewhere, perhaps in electrolysis?
Yes, I am sure it is electrolysis. A good amount of bubbling is occurring. After wards the voltage on the cell is 1 volt just from the gases in the solution.
I'll give this some more careful trials. I have been busy (successfully) testing some new wind power circuitry and helping our Rabbits have kits.
Things I will try:
drop solution to 100 grams, 50 grams, bringing the plates closer together
avoid electrolysis
try pure H2O
go for less power draw and higher frequency
I hate posting replies to my own posts. Makes me look like a "try hard". But, whatever....
I ran a test today with 20 volt DC. The treated aluminum acts as a very effective diode. One way the circuit pulls 2.2 amps = 44 watts and temperature rises quickly. In the few short minutes I did this temp rose from 17.4 C to 18.3 C. The other way the amp draw is zero - and no temperature rise and no frequency. But, if I alternate the DC input quickly, I get a momentary ma charge back to the battery for a few seconds when in the diode mode after the electrolysis.
If we apply AC I assume we would have electrolysis for half the cycle and then a voltage spike. Maybe this rambling will give someone an idea.
Before bed i thought i would check something out. There is no current and no voltage drop if I apply DC voltage of 20.74 v to the cell. So nothing should happen. And yet, when I shut off the voltage the cell puts out voltage of 20 volts dropping rapidly down over a period of ten seconds to about .600 and holds there. This voltage drop occurs through the digital volt meter. So there isn't much power but there is some. In some cases the battery voltage actually rises each time I apply voltage to the cell. Voltage went from 20.72 up to a fleeting surface voltage of 20.75. In this situation there is no amp draw registering on the multimeter, no electrolysis. Its more like the cell acts like a capacitor, charging and discharging. What I find intriguing is that the battery shows no voltage drop and yet the charge is bleeding off through the multimeter. Maybe its just 1000/ths of an amp and wont show up for a long time.
I do hear a faint buzzing sound and will check out with a meter.
After about ten cycles temp went up 1/10 of a degree C.
I will video what I am talking about.
I look forward to your vid, Lynx, and appreciate your observations and research.
I'm taking a bit of a different tack at this time, and got some experiments off the ground!
I've been working on Davey-2-bell devices for roughly a year, and went back to these -- see diagram below. Before, I've been running off the mains and either warming or boiling water.
Lately, I've gone to a hybrid approach -- the Davey-2-bell providing the electrodes and pulsed-DC so that I get significant electrolysis. (Like the "cold fusion" boys -- I've done MANY MANY experiments with electrolysis seeking energy. Some of you are aware of the history -- if you're interested, see:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/131history.html )
Photo shows the set-up running a 2-bell system in series with a diode, i.e., with pulsed-DC. I also run an immersion heater with the same arrangement, pulsed-DC, as a control. Some results (nothing exciting yet... ):
CONTROL: diode in series with immersion heater, 10 Watt-hours = 36,000 Joules input energy
Qout = [ 4.19 * 1500g of H2O] x Temp-rise = 6285 x Temp-rise
Measured Qout = [ 4.19 * 1500g of H2O] x Temp-rise = 6285 x 5.2deg-C = 33000 J.
Efficiency = 33 kJ/36kJ = 92% ( some heat losses evidently with my little water-calorimeter).
Davey-2-bell with electrolysis, diode in series off mains, 10 Watt-hours = 36,000 Joules input energy
Qout = [ 4.19 * 1500g of H2O] x Temp-rise = 6285 x Temp-rise
Measured Qout = [ 4.19 * 1500g of H2O] x Temp-rise = 6285 x 5.4deg-C = 34000 J.
Efficiency = 34 kJ/36kJ = 94% , nothing to write home about I suppose; but recall that some of the Einput is going into Electrolysis, and the H2 and O2 gasses simply ESCAPE. My friend G above has a "recombiner" so that the D2 (in his case; deuterium) and O2 are recombined -- and that heat is measured as part of the output Energy.
I did several runs with different Davey 2-bell systems and results are within range ~ 91% to 94%.
I did some more testing late last night and early this morning. I did see some very interesting an as yet unexplainable events.
With just DC volts hooked up, + to aluminum rods, - to galvanized cup, there is typically no amp draw and no voltage drop. But a few times the voltage dropped 1-100 mv and then would return to original battery voltage within seconds. Other times voltage would drop a few mv, and then increase above rest voltage by 1-230 mv. Specifically battery voltage was at 12.82 volts, it dropped to 12.80 and then within seconds went up to 13.05, sputtered around and then landed at 13.01. Associated with this event temperature rose from 17.0 C to 17.2 C.
The problem is I cant replicate any of the events I witness. When I try repeating something, the next weird thing happens.
Last night the cell held voltage like a capacitor, this morning it was immediately falling back to near zero voltage after removing DC voltage.
I have used up to 52 volts DC with similar results.
I have ruled out bad connections, bumping the experiment, bad multimeter....
If I video this I am sure nothing will happen. Murphy's law. But I will give it a shot when I think I have narrowed in on the parameters that make this stuff happen.
None of this will change the world but it is fun to see puzzling events that exercise the brain.
If you can't spring for a pc based data acquisition system, may I suggest a cheap 2 or 3 pen strip chart recorder to log your data.
It will help you to correlate events in your testing and you will have a permanent ink record that can be scanned and posted.
These can be had cheaply on ebay.
Hi Distinguished Gentlemen,
Most of what you are talking about in this thread is over my poor head...
Anyway#1, I worked for a while with the "Savic's Sonic Boiler".
BTW: I got not obvious result. :-\
I used to correspond with Prof. Nenad Savic via Google-Translated-Serbian-Language.
Nevertheless, we managed to have some exchanges and Prof. Savic kindly answered all my emails.
All, but the last one.... In this very message I asked him whether the observed fact that one of the "electrode" of his boiler was "attracted by a magnet" and the second one was not, was of "any importance".
My intuition is telling me that I should have asked him one 'forbidden' question.
OK! Intuition is frowned upon by scientists.
Anyway#2, I'm just wondering whether it would not be usefull to built these boilers with 2 different (metal-wise) electrodes. (Iron/'real' stainless steel VS copper/silver... etc...)
BTW: some used silver christening cups are not so expensive.
Another issue is the input measurement. According to Prof. Jones, these kinda "Kill A Watt" cheap NRG meters are not reliable. Are they?
In that case I would suggest some DIY-DC-to-AC inverter with freq. adjustment possibility.
For ex, this circuit from: http://panacea-bocaf.org/files/RE-OU-v6_1.pdf
(Page 64).
So, DC Input measurement would be obvious. Would it not be?
Why Don't I Do It?
For the moment, all my Sonic Boilers are in a nice cardboard box in my cellar.
For the moment, I'm fed up with boilers.
At the present time, I'm more interested in improving my poor understanding in all these sorts of 'OU' things.
Gwella soñjou a-berz Jean-Yves
Good to hear from you again, Nerzh! (Jean)
You asked:
"
Another issue is the input measurement. According to Prof. Jones, these kinda "Kill A Watt" cheap NRG meters are not reliable. Are they?"
To answer this question, I have taken measurements with temp-rise in a known amount of water, applying the equation:
Q (heat output) = 4.19 x (mass of water) x(temp-rise in deg-C).
I compare various NRG meters -- I have three different kinds now -- with Q-heat; comparing "kW-hrs" on the meters with "Q-heat". The Kill-A-Watt (KAW) and Intertek meters give good results even when a diode is in series with the immersion heater; the Wanf does not work with the diode in place.
I used mostly the KAW, and stop the run just as the meter turns to 0.01 kW-h = 10 W-hours. It helps that the Intertek meter is slightly "ahead" of the KAW and reads in 0.001 kW-hrs.
Example of control run, with KAW going to just 0.01 kW-h = 36000 J, and the immersion heater gives:
Q = 4.19 * 1000g * 8.2Deg-C = 34,400 J
So eff = Q/Pin = 34,400 / 36,000 = 96%. Which shows the KAW meter (and intertek) is working fine. Losing 4% of the heat (not going into the water) makes sense as my system is not perfectly insulated.
I'm now using a 1000 ml plastic beaker housed in a styrofoam box.
Now for some rather interesting results the last few days.
With pulsed DC, there is immediate electrolysis as I apply the current, seen in bubbles in the water.
I'm running around 20 to 30 Deg C typically, so evaporation is very small over the course of 10 minutes (I checked by weighing the water + container and see no mass change via the mass scale), and runs are typically 3-5 minutes.
But there is electrolysis -- and it takes 237 kJ to electrolyze 1 mol of water -- found by googling; someone pls check!
Then 1 mol of H2O = 18g H2O, so we find 237,000j/18g = 13,172 J to electrolyze ("split") 1 g of water to hydrogen + oxygen.
Some of the H2+O2 will recombine I suppose, but this will mostly add heat back to the water and appear with heating the water -- joule heating due to resistance also heats the water. Some of the recombination heat may be lost to air; which makes the estimates I'm doing conservative.
So I am taking into consideration both joule-heating and electrolysis in the Q out calculation. Temp rise give me Qheat and mass change gives Q-electrolysis
so that we have:
Qoutput = Qheat + Q-electrolysis = 4.19 * 1000g * Temp-rise-in-deg-C + 13,172 J/g (mass lost due to electrolysis)
Then the results get interesting -- unless I've made some mistake -- pls check the math above.
I added a small amount of sodium bi-carb to the water as suggested by Lynx.
But I use the Davey-2-bell system (photo above) in series with a diode, power from the mains through 2 NRG meters.
Results: 36,000 J input.
Run A: 2 stainless-steel bells in electrolyte (sodium bicarb + water), mass dropped 2 grams, temp rise was 8.0 degC
Qoutput = Qheat + Q-electrolysis = 4.19 * 1000g * 8deg-C + 13,172 J/g x 2g = 33520 + 27424 = 60,944 Joules out
Caveats: mass scale reads just to 1 g, so the reading could be 1.5g (and read-out rounds to 2), then, Qelectrol = 19758 (min)
And Qoutput = 53278.
Still the efficiency is interesting, 53300/36000. You do the math, I'm not ready to jump there yet.
Run B: 7.4 deg temp rise, mass dropped 3g (call it min. 2.5g); note that the depth-position of the 2-bell system in the water varies somewhat:
Qoutput = Qheat + Q-electrolysis = 4.19 * 1000g * 7.4deg-C + 13,172 J/g x 2.5 g = 31006 + 32930 = 63,936 J
again larger than 36,000 J.
Caveat -- Qheat and Qelectrolysis are about the same magnitude; am I doing something wrong in calculating Qelectrol ??
Note that I stirred the electrolyte thoroughly before taking initial and final temperature measurements, using a plastic knife.
Also, the temp probe was removed from the water during the runs, inserted just before and shortly after the runs.
I decided to run for 20 W-hours; 72,000 J input.
Fresh water + 3 screwdriver-blades of Na-bicarb;
16.0 degC rise; 2g mass loss -- call it 1.5 g due to accuracy limits of scale.
Again, the Davey-2-bell system (photo above) in series with a diode, power from the mains through 2 NRG meters.
Results: 72,000 J input.
Run C: 2 stainless-steel bells in electrolyte (sodium bicarb + water), mass dropped ~1.5 grams, temp rise was 16.0 degC
Qoutput = Qheat + Q-electrolysis = 4.19 * 1000g * 16 deg-C + 13,172 J/g x 1.5g = 67,040 + 19,758 = 86,798 Joules out
If there was a straightforward way to capture the H2 and O2 and measure these; I'd like to do it. Or use a recombiner to add that heat back into the system/calorimeter.
Physics Prof,
Very good recap, methodology, and quantifying. I am glad you are making such quick progress.
I notice the heat rise after electrolysis and while applying reverse polarity in my experiments. Electrolysis takes power. I did video my experiments but haven't edited yet.
You may want to contain your experiment in a sealed container that is insulating. I can't see into my setup because it is all housed in two inch thick foam. Could you put a glass jar with lid inside a large see through jar with a lid? Put the beaker on a block of foam inside the outer containment.
I also think fellow experimenters may want to try strips of aluminum sheet and strips of galvanized sheet metal separated by a thin porous material (felt) submerged in solution. You can make up many layers this way and bind the metal strips together with electrical tape or even clear tape. The aluminum will act as a cathode and rectify the power after a few hours of treatment with AC. I think the felt will slow the egress of the gases and help to catalyze the reaction and subsequent heat release.
I remember just a few months ago people told me electrolysis can't be achieved with AC.
Quote from: Lynx on 2012.09.15, 03:22:49
Physics Prof,
Very good recap, methodology, and quantifying. I am glad you are making such quick progress.
I notice the heat rise after electrolysis and while applying reverse polarity in my experiments. Electrolysis takes power. I did video my experiments but haven't edited yet.
Yes, electrolysis takes power! that's why I must include it in the measurements for Eout.
QuoteYou may want to contain your experiment in a sealed container that is insulating. I can't see into my setup because it is all housed in two inch thick foam. Could you put a glass jar with lid inside a large see through jar with a lid? Put the beaker on a block of foam inside the outer containment.
I also think fellow experimenters may want to try strips of aluminum sheet and strips of galvanized sheet metal separated by a thin porous material (felt) submerged in solution. You can make up many layers this way and bind the metal strips together with electrical tape or even clear tape. The aluminum will act as a cathode and rectify the power after a few hours of treatment with AC. I think the felt will slow the egress of the gases and help to catalyze the reaction and subsequent heat release.
I remember just a few months ago people told me electrolysis can't be achieved with AC.
I may try to jar method -- a way to measure gas-volume production; but not trivial. Thanks, Lynx!
Another longer run, this time at less depth (same electrolyte as C), so notice the changes:
Run D: 2 stainless-steel bells in electrolyte (sodium bicarb + water) again, mass dropped ~3.5 grams (measured 4g drop), temp rise was 14.7 degC
Qoutput = Qheat + Q-electrolysis = 4.19 * 1000g * 14.7 deg-C + 13,172 J/g x 3.5g = 61,593 + 46,102 = 107,695 Joules out
I notice a trade-off, less heating of water with more splitting when the submersion of the bells is less. (Don't know why this should occur.)
72KJ input.
Again,
I think something is probably wrong in the way I determine the Q out to electrolysis. For example, the water may just be evaporating that is lost (or most/much of it), which would lower the actual Qout. Lots to check -- I'm not claiming anything yet! And I thank all those that have worked so hard on the Davey approach for ideas including Chet and Daemonbart and David Fine (on other forums) -- and of course, Peter Davey! lots of fun in any case as we pursue this. The use of the two stainless steel bells/bowls from Ikea was just an idea I had when I was shopping there a long time ago -- I built this device many months ago; Lynx jumped in with the NaHCO3 idea that seemed to help.
This evening, reviewed some of the history of "cold fusion" research at BYU, which really began in 1985. Our first experiments with electrolysis were in May 1986 starting with light water then moving to D2O. I feel like I've come back full circle with these experiments! Except that I no longer expect d-d fusion in terms of producing xs heat -- and most agree with that now, I think. Whatever the xs heat is, its "not cold fusion!"
Here's the start of our history paper; with log-books to back this all up, of course -- for background. And admittedly a bit of nostalgia.
Quote
II. History
A. Scientific paper published March 1986 (submitted June 1985)
The roots of our work regarding piezonuclear fusion are described in a scientific paper published in the Journal of Physics G: Nuclear physics, 12: 213-221. This paper was received by the journal on 12 June 1985 (over three years before we heard of Pons and Fleischmann, or of Andrei Lipson in Russia, or of their related work) and published in March 1986.
A1. Theory proposed which presages Brigham Young University experiments
The detailed mathematical framework given in the paper was worked out primarily by Dr. Clinton Van Siclen, author on the paper with Dr. Steven E. Jones. The paper discusses fusion at room temperature and how this might be enhanced by increasing the density of hydrogen isotopes. The paper discusses the transition of hydrogen to the metallic state under high pressures and other technical points. One significant concept explored in this paper is that a hypothetical particle "with mass twice that of the electron" could lead to room temperature fusion at a rate of approximately one fusion per minute per kilogram of deuterium. This is close to the actual rates observed in later experiments at Brigham Young University by Jones and colleagues, and the theoretical framework given in this early publication continues to be a possible explanation for the cold/piezonuclear fusion effect. Indeed, this paper is referred to in our later papers on the Brigham Young University experiments since it provides a theoretical, mathematical foundation for cold fusion.
A2."Piezonuclear fusion" used by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University to describe cold fusion
In addition to initiating the 1985 study, Steven Jones (one of the authors) coined the term "piezonuclear fusion" in analogy to the term "thermonuclear fusion," to indicate that the proposed approach is to induce fusion by "squeezing" the hydrogen nuclei together at near room temperatures rather than by heating them to very high temperatures. (The prefix "piezo-" comes from a Greek work meaning to squeeze or compress.) Dr. Paul Palmer used the term "cold fusion" beginning in early 1986.
B. Brigham Young University Physics Colloquium 12 March 1986
E. Paul Palmer suggested geophysical applications
The paper was published in March 1986, and on March 12, 1986 many of the concepts in the paper were described by Dr. Jones at a Colloquium of the BYU Physics Department. BYU Physics Professor Paul Palmer was present and associated these ideas with geological data on heat and helium-3 which are correlated in volcanoes and other thermal regions of the earth. Both heat and helium-3 are released in fusion reactions (proton-deuteron and deuteron-deuteron reactions). Dr. Palmer suggested that rock, lava, or crystals in the earth might help to catalyze the fusion reaction. This creative leap is recorded in Dr. Palmer's logbook, dated March 13, 1986 in some detail (copies available on request to BYU Physics Department).
C. Report to DOE 13 May 1986
Our work on cold piezonuclear fusion was reported to the DOE in the 1985-86 Annual Performance Report, dated 13 May 1986, along with three related documents: the Van Siclen/Jones paper on piezouclear fusion, a note entitled "Experiments in Cold Fusion" dated 28 March 1986 by Paul Palmer; and "Comments on Catalyzed Fusion," a note by Steven Jones dated 1 April 1986. It was at this time that Prof. Jones received permission from the DOE funding agent R Gajewiski to pursue research on this aspect of cold nuclear fusion under an already existing DOE grant to Brigham Young University for muon-catalyzed fusion research.
D. Brigham Young University's experimental program
D1. Planning began in March 1986
As a result of discussions generated by the Physics Department colloquium by Dr. Jones on March 12, 1986, an experimental program was worked out to test these new ideas. An important discussion meeting was held at BYU on April 7, 1986, involving Profs. Czirr, Jones, and Palmer of BYU, and Johann Rafelski of the University of Arizona, along with student researchers. Plans for the research were extensively developed at the meeting. Prof. Rafelski had been very active in theoretical work on piezonuclear fusion since late 1985 and strongly urged the active pursuit of this experimental effort at BYU.
D2. Use of Pd, Li, Al, Cu, Ni, Pt under non-equilibrium conditions, was outlined 7 April 1986 - notarized lab notebook page
Prof. Jones's brief notes from the April 7, 1986, meeting (available on request) record that the metals aluminum, copper, nickel, platinum, palladium (because it "absorbs hydrogen readily"), and lithium were discussed as prime candidates for the process. The importance of non-equilibrium conditions was discussed; in particular, "shocked hydrides" and "electric discharge" were considered. These notes were notarized that day by Lee R. Phillips, a notary and BYU attorney, showing the importance attached to these ideas by the physicists present.
D3. Geophysical evidence for cold fusion was sought in the scientific literature as early as April 1986
On April 13, 1986, Prof. Palmer noted in his logbook a number of fusion reactions to be studied, including the deuteron + lithium reaction. (On March 18, he had noted the high amounts of sodium and lithium in magmas; these later became ingredients in our electrolyte solution, commonly known as "Mother Earth Soup".) On April 16, he records the findings of a paper by the Russian physicists B.A. Mamyrin, L. V. Khabarin, an V. S. Yudenich [Dokl. Adad. Nauk. SSSR, 237: 1054 (1987)] in which they report excess helium-3 found in various metals. This paper was encouraging to us, but we were surprised that no follow-up work was recorded in the literature.
D4. Electrochemical cell built and measurements taken beginning May 1986
On May 22, 1986, our first electrochemical cell for "electrolytic infusion of hydrogen into metals" was built (see Prof. Palmer's logbook) and on May 23, D2O (heavy water) was added. Using a sodium-iodide detector, we looked first for gamma rays from proton-deuteron fusion, and found on May 27 that the foreground rate when the cell operating was slightly higher than the background rate when the cell was not operating, but the result was not statistically significant. In June, we developed another means of loading hydrogen isotopes into metals, using pressurized gases, and added a neutron detector.
D5.. Work on a highly sensitive, energy resolving neutron detector was begun in 1986, since neutrons of the correct energy are a sure indicator of nuclear fusion
Throughout the summer of 1986, work was done on the neutron detector, while different electrolytes were tried, including the addition of NaOH or H2SO4 to D2O and the addition of "impurity salts" of various metals. We also tried loading the cathode with deuterium gas before beginning the electrolysis (see, e.g., 10 September 1986 entry). By September 3, 1986, we saw a foreground minus background rate of about 5x10-3 in the neuron counter, but the result was neither not consistently repeatable. However, this rate proved to be consistent with the rate obtained in later work when the neutron counter system had been dramatically improved. As the Fall 1986 school term began anew, we concluded that in order to make progress in our work we had to first improve the neutron detector. Bart Czirr and Gary Jensen continued this work. Some of the effort went into trying to find suitable hydrogen-rich, inorganic scintillator. While this work continued, Dr. Jones pursued muon-catalyzed fusion research.
D6. Student papers presented on piezonuclear fusion experiments in March and April 1988
In January, 1988, Prof. Jones organized a student research class along with Prof. Palmer and Prof. Larry Rees. Cold or piezonuclear fusion was one of the principal research topics, pursued by students Paul Dahl and Paul Banks. Both wrote term papers on the topic. On 12 March 1988, Paul Dahl presented an oral paper at the Spring Research Conference of the BYU College of Physical Sciences and Mathematics; his paper was entitled "An Experimental Investigation of Piezo-nuclear Fusion." On 25 March 1988, we prepared some deuterided metal samples, which we sent to Harmon Craig of the University of California at San Diego, for helium and tritium analysis. These examples were later sent to Al Nier of the University of Minnesota, but analysis had not been completed as of 30 March 1989 as our paper for Nature neared completion.
D7. Further experiments planned, research program set out and pursued vigorously from August 1988
In August 1988, the decision was taken by the scientific team to vigorously pursue experimental cold fusion research. In particular, Prof. Jones' logbook records that a fusion group meeting took place on 24 August 1988, and that this matter was aired. We decided that both gamma and neutron detectors would be used. Since energy applications for muon-catalyzed fusion appeared remote, we decided to place particular emphasis on our cold/piezonuclear fusion research program. This decision followed work in early August by Prof. Jones in which he outlined a paper on the subject. His intent was to include a discussion of piezonuclear fusion research in his paper, for publication in the proceedings of a muon-catalyzed fusion workshop previously held in Florida in May 1988, as recorded in his logbook entry dated 9 August 1988. (Prof. Jones is an editor of this Proceedings, which is publication no. 181 of the American Institute of Physics.) However, during a visit to Provo on 15-16 August 1988, Prof. Rafelski dissuaded Jones from including this work in his paper but rather encouraged more experimental studies first. Dr. Jones also discussed the BYU work on this fusion process and his intentions to emphasize cold/piezonuclear fusion studies with Dr. Alan Anderson and Dane Chapman in August and early September 1988. Our group has vigorously pursued its experimental cold fusion research at BYU since May 1986.
D8. Publishable results obtained in 1988-1989
In August 1988, we did gamma-ray studies, using the sodium-iodine detector easiest set up. As before, we saw only non-significant hints of gamma production in our 3 inch sodium iodide counter, so we decided to concentrate on using the neutron spectrometer, which was fully conditioned for use in late 1988. Our first studies with this spectrometer were done using titanium, palladium, tantalum, nickel, aluminum, iron, and lanthanum. We also used several methods of loading deuterium into metals, including the original electrochemical method. Thus, we performed anew the experiment which we had started in May 1986, namely electrolytic infusion of deuterium into metals, but with a much-improved neutron detector. Of these experiments, Paul Palmer records: "Steve [Jones] and Bart [Czirr] have set up experiments exactly as we did a year or so ago and looked for fusion-generated neutrons in Bart's liquid-scintillator, low-resolution spectrometer.....As in the previous work, the results were tantalizingly positive." Within a few weeks, the results had reached a statistical significance of over five standard deviations. We also found correlations between tritium detected in Hawaii and volcanic eruptions there, in agreement with expectations that piezonuclear fusion occurs in the earth. We decided in early February to publish our results.
E. Discussions with scientists at other institutions (1986-1988)
Our work in this field has been communicated to a number of scientists outside of BYU in the 1986-1988 period, to name a few : Harmon Craig (University of California, San Diego geophysicist), Al Nier (University of Minnesota), Alan Anderson (Idaho Research Software), Gus Caffrey (Idaho National Engineering Laboratory), James Cohen, Mel Leon, Jim Bradbury, Richard Maltrud, Mike Paciotti (all of Los Alamos National Laboratory), Russell Kulsrud (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory), Archie Harms (McMaster University), and Mike Danos (National Bureau of Standards).
[/b]
More here: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/131history.html
Here is a video of a few things. Ion, I know I could be a better scientist with much better equipment and procedure, but that's not my role here. That's not me. I build things rapidly, test, think out of the box, try "hair brained things". If my humble efforts help others in any way my efforts are worthwhile.
Unfortunately the video of electrolyzing didn't make it on the camera. You would have seen 1.5 amps at 17 volts going into the cell for 5 seconds. You would have heard a fizzing sound. After that I switch polarity and you see the temp climb. I did the electrolysis three times during this run. Voltage dropped from 20 v to about 15.5 over the run.
Here is another test setup I tried this afternoon. Off grid through the watt meter. The circuit runs in series through the bulb and across the cell. The voltage drop across the 40 watt bulb is 33.5 vac, and there is 20.5 vdc across the bulb. The watt meter shows 34 watts. Temp rise was from 19.9 C to 28.9 in four minutes. This is the procedure suggested at SparkBangBuzz website for conditioning the aluminum. The bulb will gradually grow dimmer as the aluminum is conditioned as a rectifier.
I didn't do any calculating on the power consumed by the bulb vs total input power. The cell holds 1.485 vdc after power is removed.
Lynx: " Temp rise was from 19.9 C to 28.9 in four minutes." How much water was there?
Any idea how much power the bulb was drawing?
Re: the pulsed-DC expt I'm working on, the results do vary from time to time, but consistently show xs... whe I count both the temp-rise of water (approx 1000g now) and the heat going to electrolyzing into h2 and o2. I would like to pin down the VOLUME of h2+o2 given off -- any ideas on how to do that? Alternatively, one could have a recombiner to re-join the gases to make water and extract the heat at the same time... which sounds even more difficult.
Would like to do one or the other.
Here is one possible test setup. Find a large plastic container with a tight fitting lid. You need to drill so plastic is what you need. Old mayonnaise jar, tupperware etc.... Insulate how you want. Silicone your wiring through the lid.
Hardware stores usually have barbed fittings and tubing. Look for a barbed fitting with flange and threads for thru wall tightening. Use 3/8" or 1/2" clear tubing. Mark the solution level at the start, and note rise , calculate volume.
You probably have been losing some warmth off the surface and some gases in your experiments.
I can only answer the one question. 200 grams of solution. I don't know how much power the bulb was consuming, probably the majority of the 35 watts. It was more a test to see what the grid AC would do.
Thanks, Lynx -- I've been thinking along similar lines and have benefited from your suggestions.
I came across this today -- in an article by Eugene Mallove, Infinite Energy magazine Nov/Dec 2003 issue. Although Gene and I did not agree on everything, I admired his work and valued our friendship. He died in May 2004; I mourned his passing.
Quote
The Return of Steve Jones
Those who recall the history of cold fusion understand the major role played by physics Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University. It was he and his colleagues at BYU who had long had an interest in the generic possibility of "cold fusion" occurring within the body of Earth, and in so-called muon-catalyzed "cold fusion," which had even been the title of a Scientific American article by Jones in July 1987. Jones et al., in parallel with Drs. Fleischmann and Pons at the University of Utah (only some 45 miles away), had performed electrochemical experiments that led in the spring of 1989 to public reports of scientific anomalies from electrochemical cells, after the somewhat pre-emptive announcement by the two University of Utah professors of excess thermal energy production. Whereas Fleischmann and Pons had focussed their attention on precise calorimetric measurements of excess heat from pristine heavy water-LiOD cells with Pd/Pt electrodes (though they had also announced neutron and tritium measurements), Jones at that time was using a "Mother Earth Soup" of materials in a Pd/Pt electrolytic cell in an effort to mimic conditions within the Earth. He dealt exclusively then with nuclear measurements, specifically the signatures of neutrons emanating from his cells. Neither Jones nor Fleischmann and Pons were believed by most mainstream physicists— then or now, but Jones' claim being the "more believable," fared better in the press in the early days. Bitter rivalries emerged and Jones, in particular, became an outspoken opponent of excess heat findings [rather - of claims that the xs heat was due to d-d fusion], but he never went back on his belief that his cells were giving off low-level neutrons. It turns out that both Utah groups were basically initially on the right track.
It was thus an honorable form of "closure" that Steve Jones attended ICCF10, after a long absence (since roughly 1993) from such gatherings. He was given the great privilege of giving the first plenary session talk at ICCF10, and he did not disappoint us. He produced what appear to be nearly unassailable scientific evidence of nuclear emanations from presumptively chemical systems. Even these very low-level nuclear radiations— charged particles as well as neutrons— are still regarded as impossible by establishment physicists. Later during ICCF10, as others presented their astonishing work to complement that of Jones and also of Fleischmann and Pons, it was evident from Jones' generous statements about the entire conference that his horizons had been expanded. He remarked, "I am learning that there can be many miracles. . ."
Perhaps his full public acceptance of excess heat results, in the context of his own results, will eventually occur.
That last sentence -- gave me a start today! I'm getting there, my friend!
Nice remembrance and story. Seems this has been a quest for you for a long time. Being a skeptical optimist is a good driver for innovation. Maybe you are closer to your aspiration than you think. Sometimes remarkable things are very simple when looked back upon.
Are you producing "brown's gas"? 2H2 + O2? If so, then you can just calculate the energy in that amount of gas if combusted and add it to the temperature rise.
Here's my thought if this is truly xs heat. You power a large sized cell, use the Brown Gas to further heat the already warmed solution to steam, power a steam turbine to produce electricity, and perhaps lower the energy usage to @ half of what would otherwise be needed. Send the condensed steam back to the solution tank. No radiation, no emission other than water which is recycled in the closed system.
Good points, Lynx. Thank you.
I purchased a canning jar with rubber-gasket lid for this expt, and some flexible tubing. I will drill two holes in the lid, one to admit the wires and the other to let the h2+o2 escape. I have a plan to trap the escaping gas using an inverted graduated cylinder filled with water... Thus I should be able to measure the 'brown's gas' quantitatively.
(However, I have family here today but hopefully can get at this project this evening or tomorrow morning.)
Meanwhile, the "Dally device" also deserves some attention I think - see thread started by ION, also this posting:
QuoteI respect the research work of Itsu, and he has videoed a Dally replication:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQUciCy9p3A
and 2 days ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utkIltw6WrU
Going to these vids will also provide links to similar Dally replication efforts. I agree with ION that this work is intriguing.
PhysicsProf
The jar will work fine and that is perhaps easier than what I suggested. Try to avoid air in the jar. Hold it upside down after you fill it and allow some of the solution to drain.
There is definitely electricity produced in this process. My cell will give off voltage spikes after the electrolysis cycle and the cell will continue to hold a voltage for hours if left alone. I am not sure if you are trying to capture this spike or if it is just converting to heat.
I am going to experiment again with the high frequency voltage off the oscillator because I think the frequency above 60 hz is important. I also think a sealed vessel is important in containing the energy.
I encourage you to go forward with your intriguing approach, Lynx.
Meanwhile I've managed to catch the brown's gas, but have some questions.
First, here's a 20-second vid showing the system producing gas: http://youtu.be/62g5endMZM0
Today, I've captured the gas in an inverted graduated cylinder filled with water -- see photo. When running, the plastic tube-end is placed UNDER the open end of the cylinder, underwater.
Here's the question -- how much gas volume should be produced when 1 g of water is electrolyzed to H2 and O2?
The bubbles appear very quickly, but only 123 ml of browns gas with 12 W-hrs electrical energy in. The water temp did rise also -- 29.8 C with 375.9g water.
I bought a scale that measures to the 0.1g.
But one mole of water is 18g, right? so that should make 22.4 liters of gas at STP, close to STP here. Or is that 22.4 l of O2 and 22.4 l of H2 for a total of 44.8 liters of browns gas, at STP, from only 18 grams = 18 ml of water?? That seems like a LOT of gas from only 18 ml of water.
In any case, I only get 123 ml of browns gas = 0.123 liters,
0.123l/22.4l =0.0055 moles, times 18g = 0.1g. But the water mass dropped about 2 grams...
Something is not consistent here... May have lost some steam in the tubing I'm guessing. Any other ideas? someone pls check the math/ assumptions.
OK -- did some double-checking, and indeed 2g of H2 = 1 mol => 22.4 LITERS of gas at STP.
QuoteIn any case, I only get 123 ml of browns gas = 0.123 liters,
0.123l/22.4l =0.0055 moles, times 18g = 0.1g. But the water mass dropped about 2 grams...
Something is not consistent here... May have lost some steam in the tubing I'm guessing. Any other ideas? someone pls check the math/ assumptions.
I ran it again, similar result -- so about 0.1g of gas. Some leakage I found around the wires through the lid; fixed it; still small vol, about 130 ml gas.
So I think most of the mass loss is as evaportion/steam, not electrolysis. And the electrical power in to produce steam is much less....
Oh, well! back to the drawing board.
Hope you're having a better day than me, Lynx... ;)
So, based on the small amount of heat used for electrolysis (roughly 1900J) and instead used for evaporation (at 2261 J/g), let me re-compute, for example, this run:
Run D: 2 stainless-steel bells in electrolyte (sodium bicarb + water) again, mass dropped ~3.5 grams (measured 4g drop), temp rise was 14.7 degC
Qoutput = Qheat + Q-electrolysis = 4.19 * 1000g * 14.7 deg-C + 2261 J/g x 3.5g = 61,593 + 7914 = 69510 - instead of 107,695 Joules out
The eff becomes 69510/72000 (for this run) = 96.5%, about the same as for the immersion heater.
If I account for 1900 J for electrolysis -- this is an estimate based on today's runs -- then, 71410/72000 = 99%. Sounds reasonable, but not ou.
Note what I said back then with this run:
QuoteAgain, I think something is probably wrong in the way I determine the Q out to electrolysis. For example, the water may just be evaporating that is lost (or most/much of it), which would lower the actual Qout. Lots to check -- I'm not claiming anything yet!
And when I did the checking by actually catching and measuring the h2+o2, then the calculated efficiency came back down ....
Other runs look somewhat more favorable, as the reader may wish to compute from the above.
Shows once more the importance of careful measurements and RE-CHECKING everything.
Heads up on an announcement that came through a few days ago on OU.com; jump in if you wish, here's a recent post:
http://www.overunity.com/12724/free-electric-multi-use-motor-home-gen-car-motor-boat-motor-lawn-mower/120/#.UFwEwBi7CMI
Lots of good guys are jumping in like e2matrix and gadgetmall. Looks like it might be interesting.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.09.21, 06:20:58
Heads up on an announcement that came through a few days ago on OU.com; jump in if you wish, here's a recent post:
http://www.overunity.com/12724/free-electric-multi-use-motor-home-gen-car-motor-boat-motor-lawn-mower/120/#.UFwEwBi7CMI
Lots of good guys are jumping in like e2matrix and gadgetmall. Looks like it might be interesting.
Yes, the old motor / generator looping scheme. i downloaded the file, but lack the password to open it.
Should be interesting to see what new twist has been put on this old saw.
Always hopeful yet vigilant.
Edit: OK opened the file but am not impressed with what I see.
I did the download, but it did not ask me for a password, and it will not open for me. Any hints how to get the pictures?
Meanwhile today gadgetmall writes:
QuoteThere is nothing to discuss ! it is a box full of common parts .unless you see something we don't please by all means speak up .
Anyone feel free to talk about anything you like. t
This topic is stale.
Also open Source and No Moderator is taking camp here to guard anything.
So another dead-end???
Update on the Inventacom device, today (9/22) gadgetmall writes:
QuoteHello everyone .
I am asking anyone who is on Team McGeorge to send a copy of the email request you sent to inventacom to be on Inventacom's TEAM with the TIMESTAMP of that email to a TEAM LEADER VIA EMAIL so you can be verified as a team member to be eligible for future downloads .
This is for his protection of a patentable invention he has created and wishes to share it with a few who are willing to help with any improvements if possible. In return we gain his knowledge for our private use .
In your copy of the request you sent him WITH THE TIMESTAMP that you are sending me or E2matrix please In addition write I Agree not to share Inventacom's McGeorge generator (Media,Drawings,Schematics) on the public domain.
y
You are then Binded to that agreement .
It is requested that this property(MEDIA,DRAWINGS,SCHEMATICS) we receive is not to be OPEN SOURCE . You may represent you own replication if so desired but none of his future media is to be posted public as to be on the WWW or in this board without his expressed permission . you must agree to not share it to non team members.
If you are not a team member you may do so by sending your request to inventacom at embarqmail dot com
with Team McGeorge in the subject line requesting your intentions .
If you do not want to be on the team then you will Not have access to this information from him or a team member.
Please send your copys to gadgetmall@earthlink.net with the subject line "Team McGeorge verification'' . They will be sent to inventacom to verify you are a team member .
Also the other TEAM LEADERS are E2matrix and one other who has not confirmed yet.
Thank you for your participation and I hope that we all can at least learn from his machine and help improve it if possible .
Gadget
Now, early on these guys were arguing AGAINST patents very strongly. And I agreed with that. Here's what gadgetmall wrote on 17 sept (about 5 days ago):
Quote
You cannot patent "Free Energy Devices" Period .Put it here open source .Even the Smartest people know anyone can make a Claim that they have a 'Generator that runs itself and power my home" We have heard stuff like this for over 100 years and none have proved it .Remember the Australian Inventor AND Lutec ,no longer exist . First make some videos and snapshots . Lets see it at the very minimum .. Second Sell them IF you can make more than one.Third . Share your Invention's Build information if you really want to Use your gift for the Betterment of man. If you do all three you will be Worthy ,Respected , Rich , and Happy that You and you alone solved all our Energy problems . Otherwise it all will be Whisked away like all the other False Promises
.You do have a Camera Don't you ? All that Money your saving from no light bill , and No gas is 1000's of dollars in savings a month alone for Energy which is where the "BIG OIL COMPANIES" got us all .
Gadget
Now it seems there is to be "non-disclosure" and probably a patent attempt. I don't think the latter is the way to go... but would like to hear your opinions on this matter -- to apply for patent or not to patent?
There are numerous free energy patent applications out there. They sometimes have been created to snare investors. There is a possibility this may turn into such a beast, where team members are asked to contribute money to secure the invention. We shall see. Inventacom has been strangely silent lately.
In my opinion, as a holder of several patents in the electronic power control field (through my employment), I no longer believe in the utility of patents.
Better to give your idea freely to the world, "pay it forward", the notoriety and recognition will come full circle, as well as rewards. My belief is that ideas are gifts given to us freely, to be passed on freely and without strings.
Concerning theft of ideas, I hold the attitude "it's not my last idea!" LOL.
I hope that answers your request for comments. and hope this doesn't derail your thread.
Quote from: ION on 2012.09.23, 13:01:34
There are numerous free energy patent applications out there. They sometimes have been created to snare investors. There is a possibility this may turn into such a beast, where team members are asked to contribute money to secure the invention. We shall see. Inventacom has been strangely silent lately.
In my opinion, as a holder of several patents in the electronic power control field (through my employment), I no longer believe in the utility of patents.
Better to give your idea freely to the world, "pay it forward", the notoriety and recognition will come full circle, as well as rewards. My belief is that ideas are gifts given to us freely, to be passed on freely and without strings.
Concerning theft of ideas, I hold the attitude "it's not my last idea!" LOL.
I hope that answers your request for comments. and hope this doesn't derail your thread.
Very well said, ION -- I'm in complete agreement with your remarks about NOT patenting and rather giving "your idea freely to the world" to benefit mankind.
A working model can be quietly replicated by the dozens if not hundreds, then announced to the world with MANY replications already functioning in different parts of the world.
Just catching up and delighted to see Lynx here.
What strikes me, is that every time a supposed invention moves off from Open Source and into Patent territory, it disappears. I believe the real reason is that it doesn't work...how better to cover in time and delay than a Patent process !
No interaction from TPTB, it just sidles off to be a damage control exercise wallow.
Dr. Stiffler has recently shown some interesting exciter based electrolysis that i'm wanting to move forward with, so the experiments being discussed in this thread act as more than pointers to the real processes.
I don't know that electrolysis takes power to achieve. In this video, for example, he shows 18V being the voltage, but...0mA ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUo1Eecqn-8
Things get really interesting at about the 3 minutes point in the video.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2012.09.27, 19:46:56
Just catching up and delighted to see Lynx here.
What strikes me, is that every time a supposed invention moves off from Open Source and into Patent territory, it disappears. I believe the real reason is that it doesn't work...how better to cover in time and delay than a Patent process !
No interaction from TPTB, it just sidles off to be a damage control exercise wallow.
You may be right! The thread at ou regarding the motor-gen by Inventacom has just about died out, after being so active for several days...
QuoteDr. Stiffler has recently shown some interesting exciter based electrolysis that i'm wanting to move forward with, so the experiments being discussed in this thread act as more than pointers to the real processes.
I don't know that electrolysis takes power to achieve. In this video, for example, he shows 18V being the voltage, but...0mA ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUo1Eecqn-8
Things get really interesting at about the 3 minutes point in the video.
Thanks for the pointer, Slider -- I looked at the video and found it intriguing. Along with a similar vid by Davro a while back.
A diode right in the water, the anode showing evolution of gas (if I understood correctly).
My set-up has a larger (3A) diode rectifying mains voltage, then that is fed to a Davey-2-bell system. So there is a distinct difference, yet both involve electrolysis and in that way appear to relate to "cold fusion" experiments...
Have you set up anything like the Stiffler diode-electrolysis experiment, Mark?
I built a few versions of the 18X circuit some while ago, but have been following his experiments rather than building with them. Plus, I store all my components in archaeological order, so they haven't been to hand.
However, similar to yourself, I built up a version of the SJR 3.0 by Lasersaber. Been great fun and the attraction is the low current draw, by it having a full length Primary winding. A C4439 transistor is able to run along at 40mA draw at 5V. The point being about HV capable and that circuit has been found to allow good 1 wire experiments (such as 50ft over 1 wire to light a 1W LOA LED bulb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m212rEeyyk )
Now, where this becomes relevant, is that the output used to light the bulb at that distance can, i'm sure, be used for electrolysis. The diodes being what i'm wondering about.
In doing so, it relates to the low power requirements of Dr. Stiffler's setups.
I'll update when i've tried it.
Update-
Yes it does, though much stronger conventionally.
Setup is a pills bottle, with tap water and Baking Soda, but some sea salt as we're short on Baking Soda. The regular outputs of the SJR 3.0 were used and terminated with thin strips of galvanised steel as electrodes. Electrodes were attached to the 2 x diodes seen in the video above for trial 1.
1. A few tiny bubbles were seen.
2. Conventional output connections from both output wires. But, reverse biased diode on the thin wire output wire. The output was hugely increased to an audible fizz ! ;D
3. No diode and the same vibrant fizz was seen from the thin wire output, but also a small amount on the other electrode.
Black deposit seen on both electrodes at the end of the runs.
So, the diodes aren't needed it seems and the direct SJR 3.0 outputs of my 3" ferrite mini version are quite good enough for electrolysis.
The transistor was warm after a 2 minute run, so amperage has shot up. Still, well worth doing :)
Update 2 -
Leftfield experiment time.
I filled another pills bottle with an alum/distilled water solution, usually made for lead/acid battery conversions.
Same setup as trial 3.
A 10 seconds run produced similar strong fizzing,
The transistor began to heat up, which ended the run....but...
The voltage across the 2 electrodes was 0.82V after switch off, 0.56V after 10 minutes disconnected.
The SJR 3.0 will form a same metals battery cell with its output :)
Fun day! Traveling in Missouri, just yesterday I asked if I could talk to Prof John Gaul, an active "cold fusion/LENR" researcher. He said yes, and invited others to a 1.3 hour meeting that took place this morning on campus, University of Missouri at Columbia.
The talk went very well! Six people came, and I hypothesized that anomalous excess heat in "cold fusion" cells is probably not nuclear but rather "Tesla-Moray-Davey" energy. PPT presentation I have worked up.
The talk was well-received, not that they fully believe it yet (they had not heard of Peter Davey cells before, for instance). But they admitted that they see xs heat but have not seen ANY nuclear products at the same TIME as the xs heat episodes. They also said they are not able to get their xs heat process with full reproducibility at all.
Also -- there is a meeting at Mizzou next summer on this alt-energy field, and they invited me to submit a paper for presentation!
I encourage you, top BUILDERS of significant devices, to participate in this conference... It's time IMHO to join these two fields, or at least increase inter-communications as I did at the mtg this morning.
Slider, Prof
Try the same experiment but with one electrode being a piece of aluminum. Let it run for several hours and note the conditioning of the aluminum and galvanized steel and the change in voltage. Then reverse the HV leads and take note of electrolysis and voltage. Remove SJR 3.0 power and note voltage on the leads. Also, connect HV to Collector and free Secondary. Other secondary lead to the Base.
Sorry I have been awol. Trying to wrap up years of Wind Turbine work. Formed a company, getting all the parts made. LYNX Wind Power LlC, manufactures the Mini Gull and Gull Turbines. Quiet, high performance and half the price of the competition. Not a plug just letting you guys know why I have been busy.