"Aim of the present video is to show a simple device that can be easily assembled and operated."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU_4uCcKazc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlr-Dx7ku1Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o47okZFpu0
Only the first link is in English. The generation of EM waves at a particular time of the experiment, while the solution is powered by the (rectified) mains power, is rather astonishing.
Nice links and experiments.
The only caveat is the use of the little RF meter, which may be overloaded or just stop operating at an intense field.
Better would be a spectrum analyzer to plot frequency components vs. applied power vs. time.
A spectrum analyzer would be surely better. Now even if the field saturates the RF meter, I wonder why the field disappears when he raises the voltage.
The RF metering device he shows looks like an exact duplicate of some meters I purchased for my employer.
If so, it is only a frequency counter and easily swamped by multiple signals of near field strength. The zero display would only be an indication that it cannot find a single carrier with enough difference for it to show the frequency.
A spectrum analyzer would surely show the very broadband of a spark transmitter with no LC tank.
The experimenter speaks of a "detector". You are surely right, ww, it looks like a frequencymeter, not a fieldmeter.
I should have watched more carefully the video before posting. The lab seemed serious, maybe it is dedicated to chemistry and there is no RF measurement apparatus (or the experimenter is just a tinker, the one who tidies up the lab at the evening when the researchers are gone away :) ).
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.20, 14:15:57
"Aim of the present video is to show a simple device that can be easily assembled and operated."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU_4uCcKazc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlr-Dx7ku1Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o47okZFpu0
Only the first link is in English. The generation of EM waves at a particular time of the experiment, while the solution is powered by the (rectified) mains power, is rather astonishing.
I'm not astonished at the presence of RF when sparks are involved. That's how radio started in the first place. What is interesting is the fact that he is not afraid to crank up the voltage. I was scared just watching the video, expecting an explosion at any moment from the accumulated gases of hydrogen and oxygen. It was really ironic when he said " it is quite stable" and the camera focused on the beaker that was quickly going unstable, water slushing back and forth violently. :)
EM
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.20, 17:29:20
The RF metering device he shows looks like an exact duplicate of some meters I purchased for my employer.
If so, it is only a frequency counter and easily swamped by multiple signals of near field strength. The zero display would only be an indication that it cannot find a single carrier with enough difference for it to show the frequency.
A spectrum analyzer would surely show the very broadband of a spark transmitter with no LC tank.
An SA would be great, but although the spark gap can excite a wide range of frequencies, there is a predominant frequency here. The "LC" you speak of is actually the distributed L and C of the electrode connecting wires. They form a resonant antenna. Remember the early Hertz experiments? that proved Maxwells theoretical work?
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.20, 21:55:35
An SA would be great, but although the spark gap can excite a wide range of frequencies, there is a predominant frequency here. The "LC" you speak of is actually the distributed L and C of the electrode connecting wires. They form a resonant antenna. Remember the early Hertz experiments? that proved Maxwells theoretical work?
EM
Granted. Don't forget the probe wire lengths, water, chemicals and the container. The system parameters will have an effect upon the RLC values. (just being picky ;D)
The probe plus probe wire lengths is likely why it peaked around 300mHz before taking it to 'stable<?> but confused mode'.
Having used what I think is the same frequency counter, I can say it would be very confused that close to any highly active spark gap.
>>Edit:
I just remembered why I don't have one of those in my office or bench. It went hirntoten when the folks on the other side of the wall fired-up a VFD (variable frequency motor drive).
Woopy (Laurent) also tries such experiments and is making progress, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PI5aMkkw3k
Some things to think about here.Which one is the acting cathode,and which is the acting annode? In physics the negative probe would be the cathode,but in chemisty the cathode is positive in a galvanic cell.Looking at the first video,we can see the current drop as the voltage is raised over a certain value-is this a galvanic cell reaction,or just the fact that there is more hydrogen around the probe-thus reducing resistance?.It is also interesting to note that only the hydrogen probe has the orange glow around it-could this simply be the hydrogen ignighting?.
Well here is a video of my first attempt at this so called L.E.N.R. It seems to me that it is nothing more than the hydrogen igniting around the cathode once the temp is high enough.This seems to be consistant in that the water has to reach a certain temp before we get the effect-which allows the tungsten rod to heat up enough for ignition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3upGk4mSyw
Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.20, 20:59:29
I'm not astonished at the presence of RF when sparks are involved. That's how radio started in the first place.
...
You're not astonished because you didn't take into account that the RF generation in not directly correlated to the brute voltage/current/spark strength but to some particular phase of the process, the highest strength producing no detectable signal while a weaker strength does.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.21, 11:59:06
Well here is a video of my first attempt at this so called L.E.N.R. It seems to me that it is nothing more than the hydrogen igniting around the cathode
...
How hydrogen could be ignited inside the solution when there is no oxygen at the cathode?
Could it rather be an electrical spark between the cathode and the solution across the hydrogen that tends to act as an insulator around the cathode where it is produced?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.21, 12:22:24
You're not astonished because you didn't take into account that the RF generation in not directly correlated to the brute voltage/current/spark strength but to some particular phase of the process, the highest strength producing no detectable signal while a weaker strength does.
Amazing rambling there Ex.
I'm sure EM was not astonished for the same reason I wasn't astonished. It is should be obvious that any certain RF generation is generated by the massively wide spectrum of that ON/OFF transition of the arc being filtered by the RLC components of the overall circuit to one strongest and many weaker RF oscillations.
There was nothing wrong with EM's statement.
Why didn't you repeat your dance about Fourier transforms?
Was this another attempt to twist words?
Was this an attempt to start another argument?
Do you have nothing constructive to do?
@ww
Maybe you are right, considering it's Mhz and not Khz that I previously thought to be the unit of the detector.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.21, 12:31:47
How hydrogen could be ignited inside the solution when there is no oxygen at the cathode?
Could it rather be an electrical spark between the cathode and the solution across the hydrogen that tends to act as an insulator around the cathode where it is produced?
Water is 33% oxygen,so oxygen surrounds the hydrogen bubble.The cathode rod is also white hot,which i would say would be creating super heated steam and give us our oxygen supply.As you can see,the flame is very orange-which indicates a very rich hydrogen burn with little oxygen.If it was spark's,why is there non until the water gets to a certain temp? As you can see in the video,there is more gas being produced when the water is cold-which should allow for more sparks as you put it.I say i believe that it is just the hydrogen igniting because there is no orange sparks until the cathode starts to glow red-which give us an ignition point for the hydrogen gas.Im not seeing any cold fusion or plasma (that i know of)happening here?.There is however the fact that the current draw go's down as the water heats up,wich is opposite to what it should do.
More testing needed on this one,and maybe some insite as to what is suppose to happen within this setup.
@tinman
I think that the phenomena are much more complex and there are many possible alternative explanations. For example the water heating could produce an increase of the hydrogen production, which reduces the cathode/solution contact, making the current to drop.
A color is a clue, imho not a sufficient marker. I thought also to the possibility of hydrogen reaction with water oxygen. But there is no reason for oxygen to be extracted from water for reacting with gas hydrogen for producing water again that we already had: it's a loop without a causal reason to be triggered in a direction or the opposite.
There are both hydraulic and pneumatic systems at play here also, a lot going on. When I have the time to study the video's I'll add my comments because this is very interesting to me.
RIM :)
Nice experiment, tinman. Clearly the water needs to be hot and the tungsten (-) electrode very hot for the orange-glow to occur.
And evidently fairly high voltage - around 220V I understand from Woopy's vids (to get the reaction started, then one can turn down the voltage and it continues.)
I have tried to reach the orange-glow using 120V grid here in the US, but have not been able to reach the orange glow with just 120V from the mains (plus unfiltered rectifier).
Woopy also reports RF generation, in the vid I posted above.
Further, Woopy is measuring temp of his system, and comparing temp reached with his "cold fusion reactor" with that reached using an immersion heater in a straightforward heat-flow system. (I'm quite sure its not fusion really, there is VERY little deuteron concentration in ordinary water and proton-proton fusion? not likely.) I congratulate Woopy for his efforts at temperature measurement and further developing this device.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkSMT8Q35Yk&feature=em-uploademail
He says it takes less power using the reactor to reach a certain temp with the device than with the immersion heater. Very interesting. Not proven as to what is going on yet.
What is the power-out versus power-in? that is a central question -- also, where is the RF coming from? Note that the CF experiment at NRL is also showing RF generation (they use D2O, but again, I think the deuterium is not an essential requirement).
@EX
I believe you may be right,in that ther is more to it than the burning of hydrogen. I just compleeted another test after the solids had settled to the bottom,and now i have mainly blue spark's with very little orange at all.So i must draw the conclusion that the orange flame's were a result of contaminantes in the water.
@PhysicsProf
I am not sure how much i could drop the voltage down once the reaction has started,as i dont yet have a variac.But as can be seen,the reaction dosnt take place until the water become's warm.I have just carried out another test,and the numbers dont add up to those Chet gave me for a unity p/in to heat conversion-so i will have to carry out some more testing on this.But having very clean water make's all the difference here-as i just found out.
Well
At least you know how to make it rain Now?
maybe we should call you rain man instead of Tinman.....
Sorry I couldn't help myself..........
Transmitting thru your tin roof to the heavens ,I would not be surprised if you brought a bit of weather your way!!
Absolutely great vid !!
thx for sharing !!
Chet
Tinman -
QuoteI just compleeted another test after the solids had settled to the bottom,and now i have mainly blue spark's with very little orange at all.So i must draw the conclusion that the orange flame's were a result of contaminantes in the water.
What are the contaminants? can you add contaminants and more easily achieve the orange glow?
Woopy does not say that contaminants are requisite... something to further explore IMO.
Physics Prof said:
QuoteI have tried to reach the orange-glow using 120V grid here in the US, but have not been able to reach the orange glow with just 120V from the mains (plus unfiltered rectifier).
You have 240 Volts coming into your distribution panel. Your dryer, electric range, electric water heater and central air all use 240 Volts.
The pole transformer that stiffens the line for your group of houses is a center tapped transformer with 120 volts on each side, 240 across the windings, and the center tap is the neutral.
Have your electrician install a 240 volt outlet for you, or use a step / isolation transformer from the 120.
All: when doing these experiments I highly recommend local fusing or circuit breaker, so you don't take out your Wattmeter in the event of a short.
A Variac or light dimmer can be used pre-rectifier to provide some degree of control to the input power. Be sure it can handle the initial power. May aid in finding the sweet spot.
tinman: Next run turn your scope on and use a sniffer coil of a 2-3 turns. What is the bandwidth of your scope? I doubt that you will see any of the very high frequency stuff but it may show some lower harmonics.
A current transformer hooked to your scope with one of your AC mains passing through it would tell much about the quality of the current being drawn. I suspect there are high frequency components from the underwater arc that is making it very difficult for the kWH meter to read correctly. This problem can be eliminated with a filter capacitor on the output of your bridge rectifier.
As it sits without a storage / filter capacitor, the arc is being interrupted and extinguished at 100 Hz rate. With a capacitor providing pure DC there is the possibility of a continuously struck arc. This may be good or bad and is to be determined.
FYI,
I performed the same experiments back in 2006/2007. I found the majority of the contaminants and the lower grade orange glow were related to the water quality. I switched from tap water to demineralized water to avoid most of the orange glow until the degrading electrodes effected the water quality.
Also found was (as ION has already suggested) adding a large (1000mF) cap to filter the bridge output reduced the popping and orange glow considerably.
Using thoriated tungsten electrodes will allow longer electrode life and also reduce sputtering.
Stainless steel used should be of 316 grade or higher to prevent more contaminants showing up after a run.
Only after the tungsten rod deteriorated to the point where its surface area had increased and the glow discharge floated between violet and blue-white did any unexpected results surface. Even then, nothing leading to OU.
I would like to run some math with you guy's-as math realy isnt my strong point.
If i am using say 300 watt's on my meter,and we need to be under 100 watt hours to raise 1L of water 48.8 deg C -is this another way to check the watt hours used.
300/60=5 watt minute's
100/5=20 minute's
So this means we can run it for 20 minutes at 300 watts befor we have used our 100 watt hours.300/100=3. 60 minutes/3=20 minutes.
@ ION
I will wind an isolation transformer tonight,as i also needed one for the GEGENE testing aswell.
I am still lost as to why the curent draw go's down as the water heats up,insted of going up like it should?.
@Ion, I'm quite aware that I have 240VAC available, but I like the challenge of trying to get the orange glow with 130VAC + FWBR.
@WW --
Quote"FYI,
I performed the same experiments back in 2006/2007. I found the majority of the contaminants and the lower grade orange glow were related to the water quality. I switched from tap water to demineralized water to avoid most of the orange glow until the degrading electrodes effected the water quality.
"
Did you use 240V or 120V - how rectified?
Just maybe the parameters used with certain materials in certain configurations are a creation environment,
The randomness is brought to focus in this vid:
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.04.22, 00:09:47
@Ion, I'm quite aware that I have 240VAC available, but I like the challenge of trying to get the orange glow with 130VAC + FWBR.
@WW --
Did you use 240V or 120V - how rectified?
120VAC > 1:1 isolation transformer > 0-150% variac > 1kV PIV 50A FWBR > 1000uF 400WVDC Aluminum electrolytic > probes
With the above setup the applied voltage could be adjusted up to ~210VDC but all the effects you would wish to see can be seen with ~100V, the correct water conductivity and minimal probe spacing.
tinman,
I found the current to fall because the forming gas bubbles added higher resistance to the water between the probes.
Thanks, WW, very helpful.
Can you tell me -- did you try to measure Pout? by measuring heat rise in the water, or what?
Another way to easily attain the higher DC
Voltage for the experiment is to make a
Voltage Doubler (two diodes and a capacitor)
operated from the 120 VAC line.
I did an experiment today. A piece of paper is soaked wet in water. I then tried to burn it with a blow torch. It wouldn't scratch. I think the temperature didn't pass water boiling point. To see flame and explosion happens in these experiments indicate high localize temperature.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.04.22, 02:40:54
Thanks, WW, very helpful.
Can you tell me -- did you try to measure Pout? by measuring heat rise in the water, or what?
The best test I used was with the device in a Styrofoam cooler. The beaker had the probes and a separate heater element.
I compared delta T.
The heater element was more efficient.
My failure was probably due to lack of curiosity and money for platinum probes.
We see that the two electrodes are dissimilar. I think that the geometry of an electrode is a keypoint for arcing.
Did someone make the Italian experiment or a similar experiment, using not a plate but a sharp anode (like the cathode) and a plate for the cathode? If so what color had the (possible) sparks?
I did not know what L.E.N.R meant, and now I'm curious why it is classified as such (i.e. Low Energy Nuclear Reaction )
what proof is there for the "nuclear" part? anything concrete?
If not, I think its more appropriate to call it a High Energy Electro-Chemical Reaction experiment, or H.E.E.C.R :D
EM
PS. Also classifying something as "nuclear" can be bad for business. All sorts of government regulations can be invoked to suppress it! Let's be smart about it.
The thread title is this one of the video in question.
We don't even know if there is a "High Energy Reaction" of whatever kind.
Well if we are splitting nuclei,then we are also getting radiation emission(beta gamma and alpha),as after the nuclear reaction the radiation is what stabilizes the reaction.If this is the case,then i !amongst others! are in big trouble-but I'm not yet glowing green like the hulk.
So now i might go and swap the polarity as EX suggested,and see what happen's.
Google Ken Shoulders ,And spend a few minutes with the experiments and data.
you'll realise there are other even simpler ways to evolve these anomalies.
He went thru the trouble of being very very informative on his work whilst writing his patents ,I am told he did this do to the encroaching federal suppression
in the Vid that GK posted there are some valid reasons for replication issues in this experiment {plasma] ,and "NOW" those issues appear to be understood much better.
however as the materials become degraded I am quite sure some "incredible Hulk" moments do manifest.
A lot has happened since the 1927 validation experiment we are playing with here [far from replication],a lot has been left out of the books we study
We had a man just north of my CT home running for president in the USA a Dr.Greene he has a short Vid on the potentials of "plasma Batteries" I suppose the Colman Galespy falls into this category too.
We make all manner of sparks here however when things are arranged differently we can really have something quite special
Nothing whatsoever to do with scseudo science,and yes you would need to be able to collect data to really be affective during experiments [ readily available test instruments]
Thx
Chet
Well i tried swapping the polarity,and got nothing but bubble's-no fire.Maybe two probe's of equal size maybe better,and i will try this aswell.
Now a question for you all-what do you think would happen if we use a neo magnet as the cathode prob?.
TinMan
WW
Mentioned the high cost of platinum being a hindrance to his research,I have substituted Graphite in other applications.
However with your luck with exploding pencils ....
Make sure you have the camera going...... :D
But a magnet ,Interesting Too...??
thx
Chet
PS
If I were you I'd put on the rain coat this time......=:}
Quote from: ramset on 2013.04.23, 12:31:55
TinMan
WW
Mentioned the high cost of platinum being a hindrance to his research,
thx
Chet
Chet-This is where my knowledge as a mechanic come's in handy.I have a very cheap solution for those that are looking for platinum or iridium.
But you will have to wait until my next video to see where you can get this platinum or iridium quite cheaply-in my case!free!,and it's high grade stuff aswell.
It never even crossed my mind until you mentioned platinum Chet-cheer's
Brad
In this video,i show you a cheap iridium or platinum source.I also ran a temp rise test using our 100 watt hour limit.
Water volume-1.64 liters
Volume of glass-887g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO-7q-keIz8
I may try this soon. Still thinking on some safety issue and how to pump up sparking strength. I know increasing voltage/current would do it, but if water act as circuit interrupter, then maybe some series inductance would do.
If anyone is interested in some of the early history of cold fusion and LENR, you may wish to look at this thread where I've linked to a written history and made comments:
http://www.overunity.com/13463/does-dr-steven-jones-still-post-here/#.UXlmk4IdJBo
So my background over the decades is mostly experimental particle physics and especially fusion-related research. I still feel that the "excess heat" claimed by P&F was NOT d-d fusion, and I urged them to not call it "FUSION" because there were not enough fusion products (by a huge factor). If they had just called it "anomalous excess heat"...
But please read the thread if you're interested; no need to repeat myself here.
I had a 90V worth of batteries so I tried to make some fire in water. It wasn't going. Then I just tapped one electrode with aluminum foil, sometimes a fire ball come out and continue burning for a few seconds like fireworks. I tried to burn aluminum with blow torch before it I guess it's not hot enough to sustain. The excess heat could be electrode burning, but the max energy is no greater than equivalent used as galvanic battery in chemical sense. Maybe it's not d-d fusion that gives excess heat, but possibility such as electrode nuclear is not too far fetched.
I found that burning aluminum may be similar to thermite. I also found that it's about 2 USD for 1kg of aluminum.
Control thermite burning + thermoelectric + electric car may be cost effective. lol
I also read that gamma ray can cause fission and gamma ray can be man made with electron oscillation. lol