Exciting results. Really. "Anomalous xs heat" accompanied by RF

[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.

[PhysicsProf]

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?

[Lynx]

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.

[Lynx]

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

[Lynx]

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.

[Lynx]

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.

[PhysicsProf]

  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%.

[Lynx]

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.

[ion]

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.

[NerzhDishual]

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

[PhysicsProf]

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.

[PhysicsProf]

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.

[Lynx]

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. 

[PhysicsProf]

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.

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.  

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.

[PhysicsProf]

  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.

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

[Lynx]

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.

[Lynx]

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.

[PhysicsProf]

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.

[Lynx]

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.

[PhysicsProf]

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.

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!

[Lynx]

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.

[PhysicsProf]

  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:

I 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

[Lynx]

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.

[PhysicsProf]

  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.

[PhysicsProf]

  OK -- did some double-checking, and indeed 2g of H2 = 1 mol => 22.4 LITERS of gas at STP.

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.

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...