Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Dave, appreciate Your approach, hope crowd-intelligence gets some traction and Chuck keeps on commenting. I think Your hands-on first-order approach is the way to go, until a promising effect shows. From a metrological point-of-view the situation is quite nifty, because there are several current paths (eg. metal + electrolyte) and dirt effects (unstable connections, temperature-effects ), plus chemical changes (black/green deposits) that are at work, which have to be separated and analyzed, which is not an easy task. One step out of the first order would be to have the assembly and materials more precisely defined (eg no 'Borax' from Wal-Mart, plus reproducible instrumentation), which can be costly. Maybe You or somebody should establish a crowdfunding-pledge, after the first order looks promising. I would happily contribute with money and ideas. It would be a good thing if You put up a dimensioned sketch/image of Your setup, whatever it is, and do'nt feel embarrassed by it's whatever primitivity. All the best Guenter Von: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Terry, this is not a scientific quality measurement, but a quick dirty amateur test so settle down.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Hi Eric, I think your right. The yttrium signal was Tom Droege's Pd/D cell. This was Pd/D just so there is no confusion with the Ni/H experiments. I wish I could recall what Tom's theory was. He was pretty excited about it though. To be honest with everyone, I think it was a mis-identified peak by the EDAX system as you suggest Eric. But it kind of fun to think back a how interesting a paper would have been. Best Regards, Chuck On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: For instance - Y is element 39 and it consists of ~100% of the one stable isotope - which is 88.9 amu, having 29 protons and 40 neutrons with no other isotope. I think you're right to focus on the weird transmutations. Yttrium is one of them. It is not like the others. I think you're talking about a Pd/D system. You probably have in mind a specific reference -- can you share it? Several possibilities in this instance: 1. 92Zr + p - 89Y + 4He 2. 92Zr + D - 90Y + 4He 3. 88Sr + p - 89Y + gamma According to Hioki et al. [1], impurities that can be found in palladium include Pt, Ru, Ag, Rh, Fe and Si. It is possible that zirconium can also be found in the palladium or that it leached in from metal in the environment. Also, Murase et al. report that XPS, which I believe is a relative of EDAX, can have a hard time distinguishing between different species of the same mass; e.g., for a mass of 96, it would have a hard time resolving GaAl, Ca2O, CaFe and 96Mo [2]. So there might be something similar going on for Yttrium under EDAX as well. But the point is a good one -- when I did my analysis of some of the transmutations that have been reported, a significant number, but by no means all, could be sorted out using P/D capture, so there would appear to be something else going on, perhaps in addition to P/D capture, or perhaps instead of it. Eric [1] http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf, p. 64 ff. [2] http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf, p. 34 ff.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: I hope your measuring the voltage and amperage going into the cell(s). When I saw the heat, the current would shoot through the roof, just like somehow the resistance drops toward zero. Maybe we can call it the Lomax effect? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67322.html Some of us wonder whether superconductivity might be appearing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Hi Chuck, I am trying something a bit different at this point. My plan is to load the nickel with hydrogen somewhat similar to the palladium experiments. The hydrogen is supposed to come out of solution on the metal connected to the - terminal of the power supply while the other gas is emitted at the + terminal. I think you may have your nickel and penny switched, but that might be required for some unknown reason. I will connect it as you have after I finish this experiment to see if I get similar results to what you are obtaining. I have had to replenish the water several times as well as add extra electrolyte, otherwise it would have boiled off. Actually, I have gone so far as to stop the experiment twice and totally clean up the pieces and then use a new mixture of electrolyte. I want to make sure you know that washing soda (sodium carbonate) is the electrolyte I am using currently. I will change this back to borax when I try your exact experiment. My supply is current limited and will not increase beyond what it is set for. I would see my supply voltage drop toward zero if the system resistance were to head in that direction. I am positive that I am reading the voltage and current across and through the cell. On occasions I have recorded the open circuit cell output voltage as a function of time immediately after disconnect and it has interesting behavior. This appears to be a quick way to test the electrolyte condition, but I have not put much effort into performing calibration. The experiment that I am currently conducting is different in the ways that I mentioned Chuck. I am assuming that you are using DC power since you speak of a positive and negative terminal. Let me know if this is not true. Dave -Original Message- From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 1:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites Hi Dave, I never had one fail. The ratio is 3g Borax to 100ml of distilled H20 (no water softener or anything like that). Nickel on the +side, and copper wire on the - side. I saw the effect come on in as little as 3hrs. Are you replicating the ptree dish experiment? 36hrs is far to long. You should have boiled the water off by now Its either wrong polarity or wrong materials. There is something to note about what Dave is seeing. 36hr with nothing like I saw with Copper and Al, Steel, Iron, Zinc and copper. If your not seeing it after 36hrs, you need to try again. This effect is robust. I hope your measuring the voltage and amperage going into the cell(s). When I saw the heat, the current would shoot through the roof, just like somehow the resistance drops toward zero. Best Regards, Chuck On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Unfortunately I have not seem any measurable rise above the electrolyte temperature yet. My experiment has been running for about 36 hours so far. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites At 02:18 PM 9/27/2012, David Roberson wrote: I alsoplaced my connections above the bath. With Borax, they had to befairly close together to get 1 amp. I estimate from memory about1/2 inch maximum. Thanks --- have you observed HOT NICKELS yet?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Jed, You probably remember Tom Droege the Electrical Engineer from Fermi lab. He had a live PF replication running for few months and would post his latest measurements in Usenet's sci.physics.fusion group. I think he did eventually publish a conference paper on coloremetry, but his eventual conclusion was he could not replicate the PF effect. Now there is back story to this. Tom and I got to be collaborators on a post analysis of one of his cells. At the time, I had access to state of the art EDAX system on an Electron Microscope. It was no wonder why he never got excess heat! He had a huge hunk of metal to load! No wonder it took him two months! It was shaped like and about the same size as a big 1000mg fish oil capsule. It was spilt all the way down it's length from the swelling and loading. Anyway, the EDAX plots I sent him where pretty incredible. The EDAX was from x-ray back scatter analysis of the surface of his electrode, and it was covered with *tons* of junk. Most from his counter electrode, but one element stood out as weird; yttrium. Tom was very excited about that finding and even had a theory that yttrium would appear in D+Pd nuclear reaction.All of that passed with Tom, I suspect. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: See, almost immediately, after the announcement, a huge number of groups started to attempt replication. People often say this, but I do not see much evidence for it. As far as I know, during the first year roughly 150 to 200 groups attempted to replicate. After a year roughly 100 succeeded. That's not a huge number. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf There may have been others but they never published, so they are lost to history. If people did not even publish, I do not take them seriously. I'm not looking up Lewis' paper at this point. What I know is that Lewis tried to replicate, not knowing what to do. He failed to replicate, that's obvious. Incorrect. He probably succeeded. He did not realize that. His analysis was wrong. See my paper and the papers by Noninski and Miles linked to it. As I said, my paper is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf I added the date to it per Haiko's suggestion. Thanks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Unfortunately I have not seem any measurable rise above the electrolyte temperature yet. My experiment has been running for about 36 hours so far. You are, of course, running a control using steel plugs instead of nickels, right?
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I think the government is aware that copious amounts of free energy is possible by coinage electrolysis. Section 331 of Title 18 of the United States code provides criminal penalties for anyone who fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the Mints of the United States.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Chuck Can you dig up any of that old theory you mentioned? Anytime a theory makes predictions which turn out to be true, it should be given a close look - no matter how preposterous. In this case, yttrium would be highly unexpected, and it could add a lot of credibility to examine any theory which predicts it - unless this was shoe-horned into the picture, at a later date. For instance - Y is element 39 and it consists of ~100% of the one stable isotope - which is 88.9 amu, having 29 protons and 40 neutrons with no other isotope. This fact alone makes Y extremely difficult to fit into any theory as being a transmutation product of a heavier nucleus, and with one or more decay reactions following fusion... since when P combines with D, we find way too many surplus neutrons; and LENR is generally neutron-free. Therefore the atomic mass numbers have to work out on their own, without a free-neutron wild-card. And correspondingly - this difficulty makes such a theory much more cogent, if this can really be accommodated within the known rules of hot nuclear physics (and/or known decay products and channels) -yet to do so, without another miracle (over and above the two already present in LENR - the fusion itself, and the lack of gammas). So, basically it gets down to there being 39 protons and 40 neutrons in Y. We can work backwards from that to Pd+D. which at a minimum is 102+2 or 104+2 (and up from there, meaning much more difficult to envision). Pd of course is element 46, but with many stable isotopes the fewest being 102. The spread of 7 protons gives an indication that the theory to predict transmutation to Y will involve a either a quadruple alpha emission, since when fusion with D takes place there are 47 protons to account for (e.g. a fission of P+D can go to Y + O or something similar) - so that that the figure of 16 amu becomes an important number, but even the lightest Pd (102) will have 14-8=6 extra neutrons to hide, after giving up two alphas. Do you see the problem? The near impossibility of clean math here makes it next to impossible. And this makes any theory predicting Y most difficult and therefore most interesting if successful. (unless it is an after-the-fact kludge). Jones From: Chuck Sites ...the EDAX plots I sent him where pretty incredible one element stood out as weird; yttrium. Tom was very excited about that finding and even had a theory that yttrium would appear in D+Pd nuclear reaction attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Terry, this first run is mainly to learn a little bit about electrolysis and what I can actually do with what I have around. If I see anything that looks promising then it will be time to tighten up the experiment and begin seeking more rigor. It would have been a total waste of time had I started with all the bells and whistles. One needs to learn to walk before they run. The controls will follow if I determine it is worth continuing the experiment. There can be little scientific value unless the results are positive. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 10:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Unfortunately I have not seem any measurable rise above the electrolyte temperature yet. My experiment has been running for about 36 hours so far. You are, of course, running a control using steel plugs instead of nickels, right?
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Don't we wish! Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 10:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites I think the government is aware that copious amounts of free energy is possible by coinage electrolysis. Section 331 of Title 18 of the United States code provides criminal penalties for anyone who fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the Mints of the United States.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Today, I am going to begin with Chucks experiment. I plan to use a piece of copper attached to the negative supply terminal and a nickel to the positive one. My sodium carbonate electrolyte is to be replaced by the borax. I felt like it would be easy to set aside the nickel loading for a couple of days while this is attempted. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Excuse the typos - Y has 39 protons of course - but the major point is this: can any theory predict yttrium and account for the lack of extra neutrons - if P+D is the operative reaction? _ From: Jones Beene Chuck Can you dig up any of that old theory you mentioned? Anytime a theory makes predictions which turn out to be true, it should be given a close look - no matter how preposterous. In this case, yttrium would be highly unexpected, and it could add a lot of credibility to examine any theory which predicts it - unless this was shoe-horned into the picture, at a later date. For instance - Y is element 39 and it consists of ~100% of the one stable isotope - which is 88.9 amu, having 29 protons and 40 neutrons with no other isotope. This fact alone makes Y extremely difficult to fit into any theory as being a transmutation product of a heavier nucleus, and with one or more decay reactions following fusion... since when P combines with D, we find way too many surplus neutrons; and LENR is generally neutron-free. Therefore the atomic mass numbers have to work out on their own, without a free-neutron wild-card. And correspondingly - this difficulty makes such a theory much more cogent, if this can really be accommodated within the known rules of hot nuclear physics (and/or known decay products and channels) -yet to do so, without another miracle (over and above the two already present in LENR - the fusion itself, and the lack of gammas). So, basically it gets down to there being 39 protons and 40 neutrons in Y. We can work backwards from that to Pd+D. which at a minimum is 102+2 or 104+2 (and up from there, meaning much more difficult to envision). Pd of course is element 46, but with many stable isotopes the fewest being 102. The spread of 7 protons gives an indication that the theory to predict transmutation to Y will involve a either a quadruple alpha emission, since when fusion with D takes place there are 47 protons to account for (e.g. a fission of P+D can go to Y + O or something similar) - so that that the figure of 16 amu becomes an important number, but even the lightest Pd (102) will have 14-8=6 extra neutrons to hide, after giving up two alphas. Do you see the problem? The near impossibility of clean math here makes it next to impossible. And this makes any theory predicting Y most difficult and therefore most interesting if successful. (unless it is an after-the-fact kludge). Jones From: Chuck Sites ...the EDAX plots I sent him where pretty incredible one element stood out as weird; yttrium. Tom was very excited about that finding and even had a theory that yttrium would appear in D+Pd nuclear reaction attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Comment below On 9/28/2012 2:39 AM, David Roberson wrote: Hi Chuck, [snip] My supply is current limited and will not increase beyond what it is set for. I would see my supply voltage drop toward zero if the system resistance were to head in that direction. I am positive that I am reading the voltage and current across and through the cell. On occasions I have recorded the open circuit cell output voltage as a function of time immediately after disconnect and it has interesting behavior. This appears to be a quick way to test the electrolyte condition, but I have not put much effort into performing calibration. [snip] Dave -Original Message- From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com [snip] I hope your measuring the voltage and amperage going into the cell(s). When I saw the heat, the current would shoot through the roof, just like somehow the resistance drops toward zero. Best Regards, Chuck Chuck and Dave: BIG difference right there in front. One of you is running the supply in constant current mode, and one in constant voltage. If the resistance decreases, the first setup's input power will /decrease /in proportion (I^2*R); and the second, the input power will /increase /inversely (V^2/R). So the question might be, does the temperature rise only because the input power rose, or did it start to rise before the power rose? My apologies if this was already obvious. Also, it strikes me that a sudden big resistance drop is sort of unthinkable if occurring in the bulk of the electrolyte. A flood of new ions zipping out from some small source (or if an area source, weirdly synchronized)? But likewise with an interface change: If small, little effect; if big then weirdly synchronized. But I never did any chemistry. Dave B.
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint This is not bad news... this establishes a baseline if your calcs agree with a conventional explanation For anyone pursuing this, even in the simplest hobby kind of way, it should pay-off to employ some of Celani's technique (or that of other Ni-H experimenters, like Mills) even though you are doing electrolysis instead of gas phase. That would be instead of the very simplest approach, which is unlikely to show measurable gain... For instance, the plating of coins with electroless nickel might make a difference, especially in the AC version. Electroless nickel, as the name implies is a non-electrical chemical technique to deposit layers of mostly nickel - either a phosphorus or boron alloy - onto an uncharged substrate. The substrate may be worth only 5 cents, but boron could be... well, in the words of MasterCard... priceless. If Chuck is correct, then getting boron into the surface of the electrode is probably necessary, so why fool around with borax? I think that anyone who has studied Celani, Mills and the others going back to Thermacore, can fill in the blanks from there on ... attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I realize that we may have a different power versus resistance profile, but I prefer to keep my experiment under control and a constant current system does a great job of achieving that. My latest experiment has been running for about 5 hours now and I can list a few of my observations: 1) I initially connected the wires backwards so that the copper plumbing joint was attached to the positive supply and nickel to negative. The copper part immediately began to be coated with a bright green deposit. At the same time, the voltage was climbing rapidly in order to deliver the 1 amp of current required. I realized my error after a few minutes and found that the copper coupler was quite a bit warmer than the electrolyte. The nickel was clean and not noticeably effected or warmer than the bath. 2) I cleaned up the copper coupler to remove the green scales and connected the circuit properly. At this time, the copper item is connected to the negative supply terminal and the nickel is attached to the positive one per Chucks design. 3) Power was applied and I noticed that green scales were now accumulating on the nickel while at the same time the voltage required to deliver the 1 amp of current was climbing. It took approximately 50 volts to get the desired current with my electrodes and the spacing, etc. This 50 volt reading was the maximum required throughout the test and began to drop soon after achieving it. 4) I decided to search for the reason and measured the voltage drop across each electrode. It appears that the green scale deposit on the nickel was highly resistive and caused a large voltage drop to appear across that path. The minimum voltage across the copper electrode to a point nearby within the electrolyte was about .8 volts although it is difficult to get a good reading due to critical probe placement. 5) I left and returned to find that the voltage of the supply had dropped to around 20 volts. I noticed that most of the green scale had dropped off of the nickel and now it had a dark deposit visible on its surface. 6) This new material deposited seems to have much lower resistance than the green one and I took time to measure the voltage drop from the positive supply terminal to the electrolyte very close to the nickel. It is difficult to get an accurate measurement, but it is in the vicinity of 7 volts while the comparable difference across the nickel-electrolyte junction is in the range of .8 volts. 7) Now the nickel is clearly warmer than the electrolyte. When I observe that there is 7 watts of power being dissipated in the nickel-electrolyte junction I suspect that a lot of the energy is due to joule heating of the deposit appearing upon the nickel. 8) The experiment is continuing and I will add additional water and borax as they become depleted due to evaporation and electrolysis. These results are very preliminary and the voltage measurements are difficult to verify. Perhaps the system will settle down after it has been active for a adequate period of time so that I can make more accurate measurements. Dave Recap of setup: Copper plumbing coupler connected to the negative supply terminal, standard nickel connected to the positive supply line, current set to 1 amp, borax electrolyte with crystals remaining on the bottom of the test fixture un dissolved, spacing approximately 1.5 inches between nickel and copper electrodes, gator clips located above the electrolyte. My supply can deliver up to 60 volts DC at 1 ampere of current. More current is available if the output voltage is reduced reaching a maximum of 5 amps on a sliding scale. I am using a sears craftsman digital multi meter to measure the voltages. Terry, this is not a scientific quality measurement, but a quick dirty amateur test so settle down. -Original Message- From: David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites Comment below On 9/28/2012 2:39 AM, David Roberson wrote: Hi Chuck, [snip] My supply is current limited and will not increase beyond what it is set for. I would see my supply voltage drop toward zero if the system resistance were to head in that direction. I am positive that I am reading the voltage and current across and through the cell. On occasions I have recorded the open circuit cell output voltage as a function of time immediately after disconnect and it has interesting behavior. This appears to be a quick way to test the electrolyte condition, but I have not put much effort into performing calibration. [snip] Dave -OriginalMessage
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Terry, this is not a scientific quality measurement, but a quick dirty amateur test so settle down. [image: ;-)] It's okay. I have done my share of experiments of this type. I even saved a couple of liters of power water which failed to run my two cycle engines, if anyone is interested. I also have a couple of small, unused 0.047 engines if interested. Oh, and several stainless steel light switch plates which served as electrodes. And. . . oh, this is embarrassing.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: For instance - Y is element 39 and it consists of ~100% of the one stable isotope - which is 88.9 amu, having 29 protons and 40 neutrons with no other isotope. I think you're right to focus on the weird transmutations. Yttrium is one of them. It is not like the others. I think you're talking about a Pd/D system. You probably have in mind a specific reference -- can you share it? Several possibilities in this instance: 1. 92Zr + p - 89Y + 4He 2. 92Zr + D - 90Y + 4He 3. 88Sr + p - 89Y + gamma According to Hioki et al. [1], impurities that can be found in palladium include Pt, Ru, Ag, Rh, Fe and Si. It is possible that zirconium can also be found in the palladium or that it leached in from metal in the environment. Also, Murase et al. report that XPS, which I believe is a relative of EDAX, can have a hard time distinguishing between different species of the same mass; e.g., for a mass of 96, it would have a hard time resolving GaAl, Ca2O, CaFe and 96Mo [2]. So there might be something similar going on for Yttrium under EDAX as well. But the point is a good one -- when I did my analysis of some of the transmutations that have been reported, a significant number, but by no means all, could be sorted out using P/D capture, so there would appear to be something else going on, perhaps in addition to P/D capture, or perhaps instead of it. Eric [1] http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf, p. 64 ff. [2] http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol6.pdf, p. 34 ff.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I wrote: I think you're right to focus on the weird transmutations. Yttrium is one of them. It is not like the others. I think you're talking about a Pd/D system. You probably have in mind a specific reference -- can you share it? I see now you were probably referring to Chuck Sites's experiment, where there was a Yittrium signal in the NiH.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Abd Ul, Von: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com Maybe it's space aliens. I'm kinda liking that explanation. I can move it around and explain anything with it. Are they *friendly* space aliens? I'd like to think so. Now You're getting funny. Kinda sorta Heinz von Foerster or Paul Feyerabend, but not quite. Several decisions are equally valid if You are at a point of logical indecision/bifurcation. When causality -- as a point-like chain of forces-- is infinitely small. But we are not there yet, me thinks, wrt LENR. Only questions which are undecidable IN PRINCIPLE, we can decide upon (HvF) Which is shifting the burden of proof to what an -ahem- PRINCIPLE is. A difficult issue in times when Logic dissolves from the (a) rigid aristotelian to the (b) weak probabilistic to the (c) disturbing laws of form (Spencer Brown) to (d) the postmodernist modal. Which constitutes a hierarchy. 'Alien': re (a) absent re (b) higly improbable re (c) a void ... represented by a blank space. ( like 'god' interchangeably is synonymous to 'nothing', if You think about it) re (d) something possible Guenter
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Replicators : I plan to hold my 2 nickels vertically, and only partly immersed in the Borax (so that all connections are above the fluid). How far apart should they be? I saw elsewhere that all Australian silver coins are also nickel-copper :(maybe swedish, too) : A big coin would be easier to connect than a nickel.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
At 11:17 AM 9/27/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I saw elsewhere that all Australian silver coins are also nickel-copper :(maybe swedish, too) : A big coin would be easier to connect than a nickel. US 10c : 21 mm diameter AUS 20c : 28mm SW 1KR : 25mm I think I'll stop by a coin dealer and see if they have any AUS 20c's My power supply just arrived.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I also placed my connections above the bath. With Borax, they had to be fairly close together to get 1 amp. I estimate from memory about 1/2 inch maximum. I am currently using sodium carbonate with a pencil lead electrode connected to the positive supply terminal. With borax, the metal electrodes in that location always were attacked by the oxygen being released and the resistivity would quickly become too large. Carbon electrodes likewise did not last long before being destroyed and that is when I went to the Arm Hammer washing soda (sodium carbonate). My latest set up lasts a very long time before the carbon is damaged. The spacing is about 2 inches between my nickel and pencil lead. Typically I read 14 volts when 1 amp of current is flowing. Occasionally it only takes 12 volts depending upon spacing, electrode depth, and other factors. I found an interesting way to make a sharp carbon rod. The borax solution ate the carbon electrode with the most material being taken from the tip. This resulted in an extremely long sharp carbon tip that appears many times sharper than a needle. The tip could penetrate a paper towel with a small effort. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites Replicators : I plan to hold my 2 nickels vertically, and only partly immersed in the Borax (so that all connections are above the fluid). How far apart should they be? I saw elsewhere that all Australian silver coins are also nickel-copper :(maybe swedish, too) : A big coin would be easier to connect than a nickel.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
At 02:18 PM 9/27/2012, David Roberson wrote: I also placed my connections above the bath. With Borax, they had to be fairly close together to get 1 amp. I estimate from memory about 1/2 inch maximum. Thanks --- have you observed HOT NICKELS yet?
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Unfortunately I have not seem any measurable rise above the electrolyte temperature yet. My experiment has been running for about 36 hours so far. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites At 02:18 PM 9/27/2012, David Roberson wrote: I alsoplaced my connections above the bath. With Borax, they had to befairly close together to get 1 amp. I estimate from memory about1/2 inch maximum. Thanks --- have you observed HOT NICKELS yet?
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
This is not bad news. this establishes a baseline if your calcs agree with a conventional explanation. If this or a subsequent test, whether the same or somewhat modified, begins to show different results, then at least we have a baseline to compare to. keep on it!!! -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites Unfortunately I have not seem any measurable rise above the electrolyte temperature yet. My experiment has been running for about 36 hours so far. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites At 02:18 PM 9/27/2012, David Roberson wrote: I also placed my connections above the bath. With Borax, they had to be fairly close together to get 1 amp. I estimate from memory about 1/2 inch maximum. Thanks --- have you observed HOT NICKELS yet?
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Hi Dave, I never had one fail. The ratio is 3g Borax to 100ml of distilled H20 (no water softener or anything like that). Nickel on the +side, and copper wire on the - side. I saw the effect come on in as little as 3hrs. Are you replicating the ptree dish experiment? 36hrs is far to long. You should have boiled the water off by now Its either wrong polarity or wrong materials. There is something to note about what Dave is seeing. 36hr with nothing like I saw with Copper and Al, Steel, Iron, Zinc and copper. If your not seeing it after 36hrs, you need to try again. This effect is robust. I hope your measuring the voltage and amperage going into the cell(s). When I saw the heat, the current would shoot through the roof, just like somehow the resistance drops toward zero. Best Regards, Chuck On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Unfortunately I have not seem any measurable rise above the electrolyte temperature yet. My experiment has been running for about 36 hours so far. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites At 02:18 PM 9/27/2012, David Roberson wrote: I also placed my connections above the bath. With Borax, they had to be fairly close together to get 1 amp. I estimate from memory about 1/2 inch maximum. Thanks --- have you observed HOT NICKELS yet?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Hi Lomax, First, I've enjoyed reading your posts as a lurker; I remember that hit piece in Science from Lewis very well. It was disturbing and really put the whole of Cold Fusion into doubt. Nathan Lewis, published a really good analysis on calorimetry of electrolysis and the physics thermal systems, but he never replicated the PF effect, for example the Heat after death effect Jed Rothwell talks about. At the time, it put into doubt whether the PF effect was even real. After the Lewis article, CF was kind of dead in the main-stream of science. As it would happen, I was designing my own calorimeter that I never used. Lewis just blew it for me. If you go back and read the original Pons and Flieshmann article, they have a huge discussion on nuclear sampling, neutron measurements, gamma etc, but in the end, they say; the excess heat (measured over a large period of rime) can only be attributed to a nuclear effect. PF released an idea that was just too good not to study; that being that being that certain solid state conditions could produce nuclear fusion in the light elements. That is what got me interested. As far as your questions on the calorimetry, on the NiB experiments, I have a lot of incomplete data from then. Most of it looked positive, but to be honest, the Lewis article really made me rethink. Given that as hind site, I melted several polycarbonate 4 ptree dishes *uncovered* with a melting point of about 250C on the nickel side. The thermal difference between the hot and cold side in 4 inch ptree dish was the odd part of those experiments. Think about the size of a nickel to heat that much with at best 11Watts. So, at the time, I expected the electrolye to heat up, instead it was the nickel. The other electrode was not involved chemically. So yes, Lomax I will say my calorimetry at the time was dismal, but this effect is beyond question, There is something really odd happening that I've not seen in other systems. I think the Cat is Our of the Bag now.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: I remember that hit piece in Science from Lewis very well. It was disturbing and really put the whole of Cold Fusion into doubt. Nathan Lewis, published a really good analysis on calorimetry of electrolysis and the physics thermal systems, but he never replicated the PF effect, for example the Heat after death effect Jed Rothwell talks about. At the time, it put into doubt whether the PF effect was even real. After the Lewis article, CF was kind of dead in the main-stream of science. As it would happen, I was designing my own calorimeter that I never used. Lewis just blew it for me. How could Lewis's critique be taken seriously when he didn't even have the calorimeter design actually used by PF?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Unfortunately, his reputation most likely carried the day. When someone of authority and assumed great knowledge states that cold fusion is a measurement error and they can prove it, many people who are watching on the sidelines will not want to waste their time. I just wish that these so called experts would realize that they have limited capabilities, especially in this particular case, and keep their mouths shut. If Lewis did this knowing that PF actually had discovered a working effect to protect hot fusion research, then he should have been drummed out of science. In my opinion there is no place for such idiocy. If he actually thought that the work of PF was defective, then he can be forgiven. I would expect an apology to be issued by a dedicated scientist if he realizes that his work has harmed the world. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 11:56 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: I remember that hit piece in Science from Lewis very well. It was disturbing and really put the whole of Cold Fusion into doubt. Nathan Lewis, published a really good analysis on calorimetry of electrolysis and the physics thermal systems, but he never replicated the PF effect, for example the Heat after death effect Jed Rothwell talks about. At the time, it put into doubt whether the PF effect was even real. After the Lewis article, CF was kind of dead in the main-stream of science. As it would happen, I was designing my own calorimeter that I never used. Lewis just blew it for me. How could Lewis's critique be taken seriously when he didn't even have the calorimeter design actually used by PF?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: How could Lewis's critique be taken seriously when he didn't even have the calorimeter design actually used by PF? Here is a paper I wrote about Lewis this August. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
My question is not about Lewis. It is about the apparent rejection of basic scientific protocol by those who admitted Lewis's critique for publication in supposedly scientific journals. It is not an arcane bit of scientific philosophy that full disclosure of experimental method is required by scientific protocol. At the point that PF held their press conference, and even subsequent to the early working paper, the PF phenomenon had not been admitted to the domain of science. The PF phenomenon did not enter the domain of scientific discourse until a year later. It was proper for Nature to reject the papers debunking Lewis's critique because Lewis's critique was not legitimately published in the first place. The proper response by the editors of Nature should have been to issue an erratum withdrawing Lewis's critique from publication. Of course, when Oriani's experimental results, with full disclosure of their methods, was approved by Natures peer reviewers, the rejection by Nature was outrageously unscientific -- albeit not criminal. Criminality, however, is properly imputed to those with public trust and authority who allows these shenanigans to influence public policy. At the time Lewis's those who took Lewis seriously. On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Unfortunately, his reputation most likely carried the day. When someone of authority and assumed great knowledge states that cold fusion is a measurement error and they can prove it, many people who are watching on the sidelines will not want to waste their time. I just wish that these so called experts would realize that they have limited capabilities, especially in this particular case, and keep their mouths shut. If Lewis did this knowing that PF actually had discovered a working effect to protect hot fusion research, then he should have been drummed out of science. In my opinion there is no place for such idiocy. If he actually thought that the work of PF was defective, then he can be forgiven. I would expect an apology to be issued by a dedicated scientist if he realizes that his work has harmed the world. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 11:56 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: I remember that hit piece in Science from Lewis very well. It was disturbing and really put the whole of Cold Fusion into doubt. Nathan Lewis, published a really good analysis on calorimetry of electrolysis and the physics thermal systems, but he never replicated the PF effect, for example the Heat after death effect Jed Rothwell talks about. At the time, it put into doubt whether the PF effect was even real. After the Lewis article, CF was kind of dead in the main-stream of science. As it would happen, I was designing my own calorimeter that I never used. Lewis just blew it for me. How could Lewis's critique be taken seriously when he didn't even have the calorimeter design actually used by PF?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
At 09:48 PM 9/25/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: None of what has been written recently in this thread addresses calorimetry or any evidence of nuclear reactions, I want to make that clear. That something gets hot sometimes and sometimes not isn't even close to such evidence. Appreciated. thanks. The thought was that if you could find a way to demonstrate LENR above the error threshold of a mercury thermometer, there could be some mischievous fun to be had in presenting the toy experiment to Lewis, who, it seems to me, made the fairly straightforward job of measuring the flux of heat in a cell into something inordinately complex.  Which is not to say there are no subtleties in calorimetry; only that it should have been clear that one of the best electrochemists in his day would be able to work out the power emitted from a PF cell above the error threshold, strongly suggesting that there was something going on besides experimental artifact.  Instead, Lewis chose to attack the 1989 paper on methodological grounds. It should have been clear, but we should also understand that Lewis was not standing alone. He voiced, at that famous APS conference, what many were thinking. That's why his speech was wildly popular among physicists. They weren't thinking about Pons and Fleischman as expert electrochemists. They were thinking of them as incompetent physicists. P F were not physicists at all, though they certainly knew enough physics to know that what they had found was supposed to be impossible. What they had set out to do was test the physics, with an electrochemistry experiment. Apparently physicists did not like their theories being tested by outsiders. Humanly, it's not surprising. Pons and Fleischmann had made some mistakes, but those were rather easily found and corrected, it didn't take long. Lewis et al, on the other hand, had *institutionalized* some serious errors, and that did damage that still continues in popular opinion among many scientists, who never gave the matter the attention it truly deserved. That's shifting, as was inevitable, given that *not everone* gave up. Anyone who seriously followed the field would have realized that something was awry by late 1989, as confirmation of the resports of XP from PdD started to come in. But it's also understandable why this might be dismissed. See, almost immediately, after the announcement, a huge number of groups started to attempt replication. It is *not* that the finding was ignored, as some of us make out to be the case. It was far from ignored. But the exact details of what Pons and Fleishcmann had done were not easy to come by. If it is possible to make some mistake with calorimetry -- and it is, we see experts debunk results from calorimetry all the time, including experts like Dr. Storms -- then some percentage of replication efforts would include errors. And if there is reporting bias, and there is, there might be an appearance of confirmation purely by chance. Now, a careful analysis would show something different, but most scientists, not intimately involved with some subfield, aren't going to take the time to do that careful analysis. I'm just saying that the general reaction was understandable. However, some scientists should have known better. Anyone who wrote a book about the field, like Park, should have been far more careful. Huizenga wasn't careful, he laced every page with notes that what was being claimed was impossible, and the argument was always the same: what was being reported wasn't like hot fusion. He just made the leap to therefore it wasn't fusion. A lot of people did that, it wasn't just him. To his credit, he noticed and commented on Miles, the heat/helium findings, which were still at a level of conference paper. He knew the significance. All the other skeptics, as far as I know, studiously ignored those findings, except for Jones, who attemped to refute the work on totally spurious grounds. Jones' comments were enough to allow many to think that the results were questionable. The power of correlation was ignored, and we've seen that ignorance even recently, with Shanahan, who asks, if the calorimetry is garbage, how can heat/helium mean anything? Must be some mistake. Precisely! How could a correlation appear in garbage results? That's the whole point! Shanahan did not actually show that the calorimetry was garbage, only that, he claims, a certain possible error had not been ruled out Shanahan is the last gasp of the pseudoskeptics. That position is, I'll keep repeating, dead in the journals. Dead as a doornail. But many physicists, totally ignorant of what has been published since the mid-1990s (and largely, as well, of what was actually published before then), still believe that it's
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: See, almost immediately, after the announcement, a huge number of groups started to attempt replication. People often say this, but I do not see much evidence for it. As far as I know, during the first year roughly 150 to 200 groups attempted to replicate. After a year roughly 100 succeeded. That's not a huge number. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf There may have been others but they never published, so they are lost to history. If people did not even publish, I do not take them seriously. I'm not looking up Lewis' paper at this point. What I know is that Lewis tried to replicate, not knowing what to do. He failed to replicate, that's obvious. Incorrect. He probably succeeded. He did not realize that. His analysis was wrong. See my paper and the papers by Noninski and Miles linked to it. As I said, my paper is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf I added the date to it per Haiko's suggestion. Thanks. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
At 05:06 PM 9/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: See, almost immediately, after the announcement, a huge number of groups started to attempt replication. People often say this, but I do not see much evidence for it. As far as I know, during the first year roughly 150 to 200 groups attempted to replicate. After a year roughly 100 succeeded. That's not a huge number. That is not the whole story. I have come across many stories of people who attempted replication, in one way or another, and who never published. I'm trying to remember where I read that a major fraction of the discretionary research budget of the U.S. was devoted to investigating the effect, for a short time. It really was a huge flap, I remember. I may have mentioned before that we put $10,000 into palladium metal, a Credit Suisse metal account, as quickly as we could, when I heard about the work. I wasn't quite quick enough or I might have made a little money, but I think we did break even. I knew it was a long shot, that's one reason we didn't buy futures. The metal wasn't going to collapse as it happened, if we had held on to that palladium for substantially longer, we'd have cleaned up. It was selling for about $130 per ounce when we bought. It went to over $1000 per ounce at the peak. That was all from catalytic converter demand. It was much more diffcult to replicate than expected. And the effect was famously cantankerous, so cantankerous that I still consider it quite possible that PdD will never be reliable, usuable for commercial applications. Maybe it will. It's quite likely that we'll need to understand it first. NiH is enticing. But we don't know what the ash is, and, similarly, the reality is still questionable. That is, there is plenty of room for skepticism on NiH. We know from PdD not to declare NiH impossible. But it's obviously different. So what is it? Again, *we don't know.* Maybe it's space aliens. I'm kinda liking that explanation. I can move it around and explain anything with it. Are they *friendly* space aliens? I'd like to think so.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
@Chuck: Thanks for confirming the bending of the coin. @all: I am interested, not to replicated this experiment in the first place, but because I observe 2 things: 1) Bending a constantaan coin will cause cracks in the metal lattice. 2) Using borax, there is a fair chance that this will create a transparant layer on the coin. A patent of Celani , published in Feb 2011 describes a process to enhance Hydrogen absorbtion of nickel nano structures by performing 2 steps: a) oxidize the surface of nickel, b) dip it in a silicate solution and bake it. The silicate layer seems similar to the borax layer you might get on the coin in the 'Chuck experiment'. I've looked into the manufacturing of 'ordinary' Nickel nano powders. This is mostly done via an electrochemical process, causing good crystal structures in the metal lattices of the nano particles. Earlier last week, Rossi expressed that his catalyst is not a chemical one'. This suggests to me that the pre-processing of the nickel power could be something else: crunching it, to break the lattice structures in the particles. It's just a thought, no scientific arguments, I know. Link to the Celani patent: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2011016014recNum=221docAn=IB2010053585queryString=(ET/nano)%20maxRec=1293 On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I have been seeking a constant current through the nickel versus a constant power into the system since the resistance of the electrolyte is dominate. High resistivity is not necessarily an issue, per se. In the Pd/D electrolysis experiments, as the palladium is loaded with deuterium, the resistivity goes up. Often the target loading is 0.95 or higher, so it seems likely that there is a lot of resistivity in a good run in such experiments. I think a common belief is that it is the *flux* of deuterium that is important in those experiments; whether the deuterium is entering the substrate or leaving it does not matter. Assuming a parallel can be drawn with Ni/H electrolysis, an AC current might not be undesirable in itself, unless it somehow messes up some other important variable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Some additional finding on silicate layers: Miles found that the formation of silicate latyer in the PF experiments was occuring and possibly essencial to get the effect. Details: The silicates on palladium cathodes is mentioned in the interview with Miles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7ZM2z_fVcEfeature=player_embedded#http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eyoutube%2Ecom%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dj7ZM2z_fVcE%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded%23urlhash=25T5_t=tracking_disc ! (@ around 13:45 min timestamp) On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: @Chuck: Thanks for confirming the bending of the coin. @all: I am interested, not to replicated this experiment in the first place, but because I observe 2 things: 1) Bending a constantaan coin will cause cracks in the metal lattice. 2) Using borax, there is a fair chance that this will create a transparant layer on the coin. A patent of Celani , published in Feb 2011 describes a process to enhance Hydrogen absorbtion of nickel nano structures by performing 2 steps: a) oxidize the surface of nickel, b) dip it in a silicate solution and bake it. The silicate layer seems similar to the borax layer you might get on the coin in the 'Chuck experiment'. I've looked into the manufacturing of 'ordinary' Nickel nano powders. This is mostly done via an electrochemical process, causing good crystal structures in the metal lattices of the nano particles. Earlier last week, Rossi expressed that his catalyst is not a chemical one'. This suggests to me that the pre-processing of the nickel power could be something else: crunching it, to break the lattice structures in the particles. It's just a thought, no scientific arguments, I know. Link to the Celani patent: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2011016014recNum=221docAn=IB2010053585queryString=(ET/nano)%20maxRec=1293 On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I have been seeking a constant current through the nickel versus a constant power into the system since the resistance of the electrolyte is dominate. High resistivity is not necessarily an issue, per se. In the Pd/D electrolysis experiments, as the palladium is loaded with deuterium, the resistivity goes up. Often the target loading is 0.95 or higher, so it seems likely that there is a lot of resistivity in a good run in such experiments. I think a common belief is that it is the *flux* of deuterium that is important in those experiments; whether the deuterium is entering the substrate or leaving it does not matter. Assuming a parallel can be drawn with Ni/H electrolysis, an AC current might not be undesirable in itself, unless it somehow messes up some other important variable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
To clearify my observations further: 1) room temperature experiments seem to require an additional trick to get sufficient Hydrogen absorbtion: the use of an additional (transparant) layer 2) Rossi might not need to have the additional layer since he is operating his nickel at a condition where Hydrogen absorbstion is significantly higher than room temperature and in addition higher pressures. On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Some additional finding on silicate layers: Miles found that the formation of silicate latyer in the PF experiments was occuring and possibly essencial to get the effect. Details: The silicates on palladium cathodes is mentioned in the interview with Miles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7ZM2z_fVcEfeature=player_embedded#http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eyoutube%2Ecom%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dj7ZM2z_fVcE%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded%23urlhash=25T5_t=tracking_disc ! (@ around 13:45 min timestamp) On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: @Chuck: Thanks for confirming the bending of the coin. @all: I am interested, not to replicated this experiment in the first place, but because I observe 2 things: 1) Bending a constantaan coin will cause cracks in the metal lattice. 2) Using borax, there is a fair chance that this will create a transparant layer on the coin. A patent of Celani , published in Feb 2011 describes a process to enhance Hydrogen absorbtion of nickel nano structures by performing 2 steps: a) oxidize the surface of nickel, b) dip it in a silicate solution and bake it. The silicate layer seems similar to the borax layer you might get on the coin in the 'Chuck experiment'. I've looked into the manufacturing of 'ordinary' Nickel nano powders. This is mostly done via an electrochemical process, causing good crystal structures in the metal lattices of the nano particles. Earlier last week, Rossi expressed that his catalyst is not a chemical one'. This suggests to me that the pre-processing of the nickel power could be something else: crunching it, to break the lattice structures in the particles. It's just a thought, no scientific arguments, I know. Link to the Celani patent: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2011016014recNum=221docAn=IB2010053585queryString=(ET/nano)%20maxRec=1293 On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I have been seeking a constant current through the nickel versus a constant power into the system since the resistance of the electrolyte is dominate. High resistivity is not necessarily an issue, per se. In the Pd/D electrolysis experiments, as the palladium is loaded with deuterium, the resistivity goes up. Often the target loading is 0.95 or higher, so it seems likely that there is a lot of resistivity in a good run in such experiments. I think a common belief is that it is the *flux* of deuterium that is important in those experiments; whether the deuterium is entering the substrate or leaving it does not matter. Assuming a parallel can be drawn with Ni/H electrolysis, an AC current might not be undesirable in itself, unless it somehow messes up some other important variable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Eric, You make a good point. As a selfdeclared (precision) measurement addict , let me comment: 1) Calorimetry, especially with small effects, is a central issue. I do not know a lot about that, but manageble by careful analysis The possible errors even Rossi et al made in high-power contexts with COP1, makes my head scratch. How could this possibly be? 2) Small effects with small (+/- 1watt) systems are difficult to measure,agreed, but manageable with careful measurement techniques. Maybe Rossi put some hope in National Instruments, because this -ahem- measurement thing was all over his head. He is the guy for the big things, not for watching ants doing their walk. But the NI guys do not know a lot about the intricacies of physical effects, which they eventually measure to six points behind the comma, not knowing what they just measured a second ago. NI-management is not a lot of help here also. Those are basically the know-nothings, who see this as a commercial issue. So to call NI to the resuce of Rossi as the competents, is a pledge of a bunch of incompetents in the first place. It is like Apple accusing why Your girlfriend told you she leaves, because she was using an iphone. But it seems we did not yet reach the lowest(highest?) level of delusion. 3) I always wondered, why , as You mention, nobody monitors the development of the resisitivity of the base-reactant --day Ni or Ni-Cu over temperature-time- H-loading, which should vary significantly BEFORE any reaction takes place! Eg constantan, which is 55%Cu 44%Ni, 1%Mn has an extremely well known R-T coefficient. This is a reference. If this changes via H-loading, T, pressure and such, this would be significant! Just have a careful look, and know what You are doing! 4) calorimetrry maybe a difficult issue when small quantities are involved, but not insurmountable. Micro-Kelvins can be measured eg during phase-changes of metals, as I managed to contribute in my professional carreer. So what exactly is the solution to the problem? a) have a good grasp of Your effect b) have a good understanding of how you isolate the effect out of noise and side-effects. Quite basic, right? Guenter Von: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 7:08 Dienstag, 25.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have been seeking a constant current through the nickel versus a constant power into the system since the resistance of the electrolyte is dominate. High resistivity is not necessarily an issue, per se. In the Pd/D electrolysis experiments, as the palladium is loaded with deuterium, the resistivity goes up. Often the target loading is 0.95 or higher, so it seems likely that there is a lot of resistivity in a good run in such experiments. I think a common belief is that it is the *flux* of deuterium that is important in those experiments; whether the deuterium is entering the substrate or leaving it does not matter. Assuming a parallel can be drawn with Ni/H electrolysis, an AC current might not be undesirable in itself, unless it somehow messes up some other important variable. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
At 10:15 PM 9/24/2012, Eric Walker wrote: If a reproducible lo-fi protocol could be worked out, someone could write to Nathan Lewis and say, we took a look at your objections in 1989 to the calorimetry and think we might have found a way around some of the difficulties ... None of what has been written recently in this thread addresses calorimetry or any evidence of nuclear reactions, I want to make that clear. That something gets hot sometimes and sometimes not isn't even close to such evidence. However, a way around some of the difficulties was found, before 1994. Miles found that excess heat in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, which he was able to reproduce many times, was correlated with excess heat, at roughly the right value for deuterium fusion. Helium is a nuclear product. The correlation is very strong: no heat, no helium, and thus, we may assume, no helium, no FPHE. Lewis looked for heat and may have looked for helium. MIT certainly did. No heat, no helium (There have been some reanalyses which show that experiments with both Lewis and MIT experiments appear to have had a little anomalous heat, it simply wasn't as much as was expected, and nailing it down wasn't considered important, likely it was not enough heat for the reaction to have generated enough helium to be noteworthy.) So if you do a PdD experiment and find no XP, it simply means that something was different and the reaction was not set up. This was known and understood even in the 1989 U.S. Department of Energy review. A negative replication never negates positive results, not on its own. Naturally, the pseudoskeptics attempt to use this as an argument against cold fusion. No reliability, the equate with unreality, yet many known phenomena, especially when little understood, appear to be unreliable. Once it was known that excess heat and helium were correlated, it becomes possible to independently check the calorimetry, by measuring helium. Some of the early negative replications measured both heat and helium, finding neither. Those then become part of the complete data set that *confirms* cold fusion, by confirming part of the heat/helium correlation. Now, the obvious challenge for those who wish to continue to deny cold fusion: reproduce the experiments! Then demonstrate the artifacts involved. That would be real science. I can imagine the pseudoskeptical wheels turning. What? Reproduce bad measurements? Yes. Reproduce bad measurements, if that is what is the problem. Use the same methods, and show, then, through controlled experiment, independent calorimetry, etc., how poor technique produces the results that have been considered to establish the reality of cold fusion. I'm warning you, though, it ain't gonna be easy. Have fun trying to explain why phony heat matches phony helium results, with the helium being measured blind. Have fun trying to explain why so many different calorimetric methods come up with the same anomaly. (Lewis actually attempted what could have been a piece of this, when he found that some cells appeared to show excess heat, which disappeared when they were stirred. If the cells had been similar in design and use to the Pons and Fleischmann cells, this could have been a cold-fusion-killer. But it wasn't, and very clear anomalous heat has been shown with flow calorimetry, impervious to this problem. This was all before the heat/helium correlation was known, most people absolutely did not expect to see helium as the ash. But Huizenga realized the implications of Miles' discovery immediately. He knew what a correlation would mean, and he only remained so seriously skeptical because he was able to stand on Miles not yet having been confirmed. Miles was confirmed, perhaps someone knows how Huizenga responded to that, if he was still capable of response.) Shanahan was desperate in his last published criticism, he'd obviously lost all shame, asserting Rube Goldberg explanations that couldn't possibly cover the range of evidence. I think the editors published his letter because the skeptical position is truly dead, but some readers may have complained, it is still a common opinion among the ignorant that cold fusion is total bogosity, and the editgors wanted to nail the coffin shut, as was effectively done when most of the major scientists in the field responded. (Journal of Environmental Monitoring, the original review of cold fusion was by Krivit and Marwan, if you want to find this.) (Shanahan later complained that the editors would not allow him to respond again. The tables have been turned. At a certain point, journals stop opening their pages to what they see as a crank.)
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: None of what has been written recently in this thread addresses calorimetry or any evidence of nuclear reactions, I want to make that clear. That something gets hot sometimes and sometimes not isn't even close to such evidence. Appreciated. The thought was that if you could find a way to demonstrate LENR above the error threshold of a mercury thermometer, there could be some mischievous fun to be had in presenting the toy experiment to Lewis, who, it seems to me, made the fairly straightforward job of measuring the flux of heat in a cell into something inordinately complex. Which is not to say there are no subtleties in calorimetry; only that it should have been clear that one of the best electrochemists in his day would be able to work out the power emitted from a PF cell above the error threshold, strongly suggesting that there was something going on besides experimental artifact. Instead, Lewis chose to attack the 1989 paper on methodological grounds. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Yeah, and remember I was trying to achieve Boron-Hydrogen fusion. At the beginning of the PF announcement, Pons' and Flieshman suggested that the electrolysis over potential could induce pressures at the surface of the metal that are literally astronomical. I don't recall exactly, but it was huge! 10-23 PSI? Something like that. That was the track I followed theory wise to design this experiment.You know, at the atomic level, that scale of pressure is typical, so what if? So question one; does that over potential exist on the cathode only, or does it exist on both?Cathode vs anode is one of the most confusing terminologies I've run into. Cathode should be negative, anode should be positive. However, the direction of flow for electrons is weird. At the time, no one knew if it was a surface effect or a deep metal effect. Based on the period of time for the PF effect (quite questionable effect) to come on, the Pd+D sounded like it was a deep metal effect. But their discusion suggested over potentials at the surface. If it was surface, then a B11 + p fusion (pB11) might be possible. At the time surface vs volume effect was a huge debate. So being the curious and cheap college student I was, this is the end result. I did tried a lot of common metals and combinations, Al, stainless steel, zinc, all stunk, and borax corroded the alligator clips (eventually). Copper wire did OK, but would break down and color the electrolyte (co-deposition is possible there, but the Ni, never changed color from the copper deposits). Ni was awesome. I eventually settled on graphite from a pencil. although a hobby shop would have been better. Just carefully shave off the wood with a razor or exacto knife.I selected graphite for several reasons, but mainly I didn't wan't it participating in reaction. It should be inert for most of the chemistry that was happening. It also has some resistance so it acts kind of like a current limiter ( I had burned up a DC transformer with a copper electrode ). The effect is very robust (which is what CF needed from the beginning). It is fascinating and the physics behind it is not trivial! Best Regards, Chuck On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 08:29 PM 9/23/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson mailto: dlrober...@aol.comdl**rober...@aol.com dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At the moment my hydrogen loading system is taking 1 amp at about 20 volts.  The voltage reading varies greatly depending upon the spacing between the electrodes as expected with a resistive electrolyte. I'm enjoying the crazy tabletop experiment a little more than I should. Let's see -- a nickel coin, pencil lead, borax ...  Maybe you can work out and document a simple protocol for others, and then do large run of the experiments, and, using statistical analysis, show that there's a significant difference in the integrated temperature series in the cell with the nickel versus the cell with the pencil lead.  Just for fun, you could use a simple mercury thermometer rather than something fancy; there would be no end to the amusement if LENR could be convincingly established using stuff that can be found in one's home. Sure. It's not very likely, though. Still, trying stuff is fun, and you never can tell what you will find. Be careful. You are evolving hydrogen, which is, of course, flammable. I don't think that nickel loads much hydrogen, but I do suggest treating it as flammable. So if you heat it, be prepared for it to start to burn furiously. That would definitely happen with palladium.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
You performed some interesting experiments Chuck. I am always amazed at what can be done with minimum equipment when someone is curious and inventive. You seem to have run into a lot of the issues that I am facing, but that is the way to learn. The PF effect leaves me asking similar questions. Why the long time period before LENR is demonstrated; I hope it is not just to discourage researchers. Anyhow, when Celani found that a wire with a large proportion of copper to nickel demonstrated LENR activity, then the US nickel became a natural substitute. Who would have guessed that anyone within the government was thinking that far ahead? :-) Last evening my pencil lead carbon electrode tip took a turn for the worse. For some reason it either burned up under cover of the electrolyte or reacted with released oxygen to disappear. I initially assumed that the table was jarred and caused it to break off so I moved the connection further to expose new carbon. This arrangement seemed to work for a long time so I let it continue to operate. A bit later, the tip was gone again and I started to wonder why. The lead was fed further and the burn out came quicker until it was time to quit for the evening. Today, I put a new pencil lead into position, added additional water to the electrolyte and also increased the amount of sodium carbonate to the solution until some of the crystals were left un dissolved. My operational theory is that the electrolysis depleted the solution and left a reactive mix that eats carbon. The new addition of material should eliminate this behavior if my theory is correct and the experiment is in progress. Does anyone have actual knowledge of the situation? Chuck your discussion of the surface pressure is quite interesting and I am hoping that it will cause the copper-nickel alloy to develop surface cracks that might behave as NAE after enough time has elapsed. Thus far the nickel surface appears shiny and smooth to the nuked (naked) eyes. I am not aware of the appearance of a metallic surface which has nano sized blemishes. I am using a laboratory quality power supply for my experiments. Many years ago I used one of these exact supplies to design radio components and bought it at auction when the company where I once worked decided to eliminate excess old equipment. It has short circuit current setting ability as well as open circuit voltage adjustment so I have excellent control over the current being drawn by my experiment. You could have used something such as this when you were destroying materials and transformers. Dave -Original Message- From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 4:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites Yeah, and remember I was trying to achieve Boron-Hydrogen fusion. At the beginning of the PF announcement, Pons' and Flieshman suggested that the electrolysis over potential could induce pressures at the surface of the metal that are literally astronomical. I don't recall exactly, but it was huge! 10-23 PSI? Something like that. That was the track I followed theory wise to design this experiment.You know, at the atomic level, that scale of pressure is typical, so what if? So question one; does that over potential exist on the cathode only, or does it exist on both?Cathode vs anode is one of the most confusing terminologies I've run into. Cathode should be negative, anode should be positive. However, the direction of flow for electrons is weird. At the time, no one knew if it was a surface effect or a deep metal effect. Based on the period of time for the PF effect (quite questionable effect) to come on, the Pd+D sounded like it was a deep metal effect. But their discusion suggested over potentials at the surface. If it was surface, then a B11 + p fusion (pB11) might be possible. At the time surface vs volume effect was a huge debate. So being the curious and cheap college student I was, this is the end result. I did tried a lot of common metals and combinations, Al, stainless steel, zinc, all stunk, and borax corroded the alligator clips (eventually). Copper wire did OK, but would break down and color the electrolyte (co-deposition is possible there, but the Ni, never changed color from the copper deposits). Ni was awesome. I eventually settled on graphite from a pencil. although a hobby shop would have been better. Just carefully shave off the wood with a razor or exacto knife.I selected graphite for several reasons, but mainly I didn't wan't it participating in reaction. It should be inert for most of the chemistry that was happening. It also has some resistance so it acts kind of like a current limiter ( I had burned up a DC transformer with a copper electrode ). The effect is very robust (which is what CF needed from
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Chuck, a few postings earlier in this e-mail thread, somebody pointed out
you had done some works on the applied coin.
He suggested part of the coin was bended. Can you confirm this?
In my opinion this might be a crusial pre-processing if you did.
Op maandag 24 september 2012 schreef David Roberson (dlrober...@aol.com)
het volgende:
You performed some interesting experiments Chuck. I am always amazed at
what can be done with minimum equipment when someone is curious and
inventive. You seem to have run into a lot of the issues that I am facing,
but that is the way to learn.
The PF effect leaves me asking similar questions. Why the long time
period before LENR is demonstrated; I hope it is not just to discourage
researchers. Anyhow, when Celani found that a wire with a large proportion
of copper to nickel demonstrated LENR activity, then the US nickel became a
natural substitute. Who would have guessed that anyone within the
government was thinking that far ahead? :-)
Last evening my pencil lead carbon electrode tip took a turn for the
worse. For some reason it either burned up under cover of the electrolyte
or reacted with released oxygen to disappear. I initially assumed that the
table was jarred and caused it to break off so I moved the connection
further to expose new carbon. This arrangement seemed to work for a long
time so I let it continue to operate. A bit later, the tip was gone again
and I started to wonder why. The lead was fed further and the burn out
came quicker until it was time to quit for the evening.
Today, I put a new pencil lead into position, added additional water to
the electrolyte and also increased the amount of sodium carbonate to the
solution until some of the crystals were left un dissolved. My operational
theory is that the electrolysis depleted the solution and left a reactive
mix that eats carbon. The new addition of material should eliminate this
behavior if my theory is correct and the experiment is in progress. Does
anyone have actual knowledge of the situation?
Chuck your discussion of the surface pressure is quite interesting and I
am hoping that it will cause the copper-nickel alloy to develop surface
cracks that might behave as NAE after enough time has elapsed. Thus far
the nickel surface appears shiny and smooth to the nuked (naked) eyes. I
am not aware of the appearance of a metallic surface which has nano sized
blemishes.
I am using a laboratory quality power supply for my experiments. Many
years ago I used one of these exact supplies to design radio components and
bought it at auction when the company where I once worked decided to
eliminate excess old equipment. It has short circuit current setting
ability as well as open circuit voltage adjustment so I have excellent
control over the current being drawn by my experiment. You could have used
something such as this when you were destroying materials and transformers.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cbsit...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 4:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents :
Chuck Sites
Yeah, and remember I was trying to achieve Boron-Hydrogen fusion. At
the beginning of the PF announcement, Pons' and Flieshman suggested that
the electrolysis over potential could induce pressures at the surface of
the metal that are literally astronomical. I don't recall exactly, but it
was huge! 10-23 PSI? Something like that. That was the track I followed
theory wise to design this experiment.You know, at the atomic level,
that scale of pressure is typical, so what if?
So question one; does that over potential exist on the cathode only, or
does it exist on both?Cathode vs anode is one of the most
confusing terminologies I've run into. Cathode should be negative, anode
should be positive. However, the direction of flow for electrons is weird.
At the time, no one knew if it was a surface effect or a deep metal
effect. Based on the period of time for the PF effect (quite
questionable effect) to come on, the Pd+D sounded like it was a deep metal
effect. But their discusion suggested over potentials at the surface. If
it was surface, then a B11 + p fusion (pB11) might be possible. At the
time surface vs volume effect was a huge debate.
So being the curious and cheap college student I was, this is the end
result. I did tried a lot of common metals and combinations, Al, stainless
steel, zinc, all stunk, and borax corroded the alligator clips
(eventually). Copper wire did OK, but would break down and color the
electrolyte (co-deposition is possible there, but the Ni, never changed
color from the copper deposits). Ni was awesome. I eventually settled on
graphite from a pencil. although a hobby shop would
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Teslaalset, yes I can confirm that. First I would always wash and clean the coins as best as possible. Then using a hacksaw, I would make two cuts about a half inch into the coin and 1/8 inch apart. Then using needle nose pliers, you can just bend the tab up. That worked good for the ptree dishs, as they would stand on there own. When I progressed to the larger size jars, and the coins were to be completely submersed, I would attach the nickel to a solid copper wire (12 AWG like what is used to wire a house 20Amp outlet). I would strip only the insulation at end of the wire about 1/4 and the bend the nickel tab over the bare end of the wire, and wrap the tab hard. The nickel is pretty soft and will bend easily around the wire. Just pench it tight. Lastly you need to seal that connection. I choose heat a clear resistant silicone caulk. That seemed to work pretty good. Regarding the graphite for the counter electrode. You can also use just copper wire, since the nickel electrode is 75% copper. The copper from the counter electrode won't poison the reaction. I had good luck with it also. Good luck with you experimenting. Best Regards, Chuck On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Chuck, a few postings earlier in this e-mail thread, somebody pointed out you had done some works on the applied coin. He suggested part of the coin was bended. Can you confirm this? In my opinion this might be a crusial pre-processing if you did. Op maandag 24 september 2012 schreef David Roberson (dlrober...@aol.com) het volgende: You performed some interesting experiments Chuck. I am always amazed at what can be done with minimum equipment when someone is curious and inventive. You seem to have run into a lot of the issues that I am facing, but that is the way to learn. The PF effect leaves me asking similar questions. Why the long time period before LENR is demonstrated; I hope it is not just to discourage researchers. Anyhow, when Celani found that a wire with a large proportion of copper to nickel demonstrated LENR activity, then the US nickel became a natural substitute. Who would have guessed that anyone within the government was thinking that far ahead? :-) Last evening my pencil lead carbon electrode tip took a turn for the worse. For some reason it either burned up under cover of the electrolyte or reacted with released oxygen to disappear. I initially assumed that the table was jarred and caused it to break off so I moved the connection further to expose new carbon. This arrangement seemed to work for a long time so I let it continue to operate. A bit later, the tip was gone again and I started to wonder why. The lead was fed further and the burn out came quicker until it was time to quit for the evening. Today, I put a new pencil lead into position, added additional water to the electrolyte and also increased the amount of sodium carbonate to the solution until some of the crystals were left un dissolved. My operational theory is that the electrolysis depleted the solution and left a reactive mix that eats carbon. The new addition of material should eliminate this behavior if my theory is correct and the experiment is in progress. Does anyone have actual knowledge of the situation? Chuck your discussion of the surface pressure is quite interesting and I am hoping that it will cause the copper-nickel alloy to develop surface cracks that might behave as NAE after enough time has elapsed. Thus far the nickel surface appears shiny and smooth to the nuked (naked) eyes. I am not aware of the appearance of a metallic surface which has nano sized blemishes. I am using a laboratory quality power supply for my experiments. Many years ago I used one of these exact supplies to design radio components and bought it at auction when the company where I once worked decided to eliminate excess old equipment. It has short circuit current setting ability as well as open circuit voltage adjustment so I have excellent control over the current being drawn by my experiment. You could have used something such as this when you were destroying materials and transformers. Dave -Original Message- From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 4:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites Yeah, and remember I was trying to achieve Boron-Hydrogen fusion. At the beginning of the PF announcement, Pons' and Flieshman suggested that the electrolysis over potential could induce pressures at the surface of the metal that are literally astronomical. I don't recall exactly, but it was huge! 10-23 PSI? Something like that. That was the track I followed theory wise to design this experiment.You know, at the atomic level, that scale of pressure is typical, so what if? So question one; does
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : (Chuck) Sites Effect
I think these are Chuck's first posts on usenet : 5/4/89 https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=enfromgroups=#!topic/alt.fusion/BwPLHQ2lO TE ... Using these ideas, here is a basement physics experiment, I've tried (It's only sugjested as possible way to see cold fusion if B2H-- is doing as I described. I'm not responsible you die of radiation poisoning, or anykind of other laboratory mishaps :-) This very simple experiment which generates a fair amount of heat. I leave the neutron, and gamma tests to the experts, or a good chemist to explain where the heat comes from. Electrolyze a nickle (Ni) anode (+) and a Copper (Cu) cathode (-) in a bath of H2O and Borax. (2Na4B7O*10H2O) at 10V @ 0.150amp. Replace with D2O at your own risk. 5/29/89 https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=enfromgroups=#!topic/alt.fusion/wc0FykCIIFE ... First, I appoligize for the crude-ness of my last posting. Lets just say that I had trouble with an editor (vi to be exact). ... Electodes of the nickel-copper, copper-nickel combinations were tried. The Cu cathode/Ni anode produced heat on the Ni anode side. >From 20C TO 60C in about 1hr. The heat appears when the black salt form. It took about 3hr to evaporate 15ml of H2O. The A/C experiments are interesting. The Ni-Ni, Ni-Cu, Cu-Ni combinations all generate heat, however, in the Ni-Cu, Cu-Ni combinations, it was the copper that generates heat, not Nickel! The heat seems a little higher too. 20C to about 80C in 3hrs. no salts appear to form, and very, very little gasses evolve. However, the nickel shows some discolorization at the tips of the C-shaped electrodes. Because the Cu electrodes seem to be the source of heat, it throughs a strange twist into the idea of a chemical evolution of heat. But since Ni-Ni also generates heat, and Cu-Cu does not, it sugjests that a Ni-B compound is a component of the source of heat. A control run of all experiments A/C D/C with pure H2O showed no heat from any combination of electrodes. ... - - - in an eMail, Check graciously accepted the term Sites Effect which I proposed for his observation.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : (Chuck) Sites Effect
At 02:05 PM 9/24/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I think these are Chuck's first posts on usenet : 5/4/89 That would be 5/14/89
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Hello Chuck, You have made an interresting experiment worth to try to repeat. Teslaalset and Dave are on it seems. Chuch, did you try with another salt than Borax and succeed on excess heat as you had with Borax ? Is Borax a key element ? Best regards, Arnaud Kodeck
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Hi Arnaud, Yes, I did try two other electrolytes; Boric Acid (H3BO3) was one, and Potassium Hydroxide (KOH). Mills was a proponent of the KOH and nickel and his shrunken hydrogen theory (the hydrino concept) was interesting. He put some work into, but I could never get it to work. The metals just stayed cold and after several days, I gave up on that.I thought the H3BO2 might be good, but it's not a good electrolyte (in-fact it's not conductive at all). At first I tried that with aluminum cathode with the idea that since boron is in the same column on the periodic table as Al, that B might break of and embed into the Aluminum, where it might be a better chance to encounter a H ion. That didn't work so I tried mixing Borax and Boric Acid in-solution. That actually seemed to help. The amperage increased, as well as temp. That was with 11V dc, at 1 to 1.24 ams. The temp on a 100ml flask reached 69+C and required frequent refreshes of water until it just started declining the next day. That was Ni+ Cu- electrodes. I also wanted to try titanium since Steve Jones was using that.and it absorbed hydrogen very well. I just never got around to that series, and I was already puzzled enough with the Nickel results. Good luck with your experiments. Best Regards, Chuck - On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: ** Hello Chuck, You have made an interresting experiment worth to try to repeat. Teslaalset and Dave are on it seems. Chuch, did you try with another salt than Borax and succeed on excess heat as you had with Borax ? Is Borax a key element ? Best regards, Arnaud Kodeck
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I just won a 0-30V 5A power supply on eBay. Now I need to save up for a coup'la nickels. (I really AM going to scoop up some free Borax!)
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
At 04:47 PM 9/24/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: You have made an interresting experiment worth to try to repeat. Teslaalset and Dave are on it seems. Chuch, did you try with another salt than Borax and succeed on excess heat as you had with Borax ? Is Borax a key element ? The experimental work described is interesting, but there is no report here of excess heat, that I've seen. That things get hot when you pump power through them isn't excess heat, it may be just ordinary heat. To find excess heat requires measuring the input energy and output energy and the various chemical shifts (that can store or release energy), and finding a discrepancy, power coming out that is more than what was put in (after considering the chemical effects, perhaps).
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
It might cost you more to scoop up some borax after driving than it would at the grocery. Congrats on the supply. My pencil lead electrode has held up all day without a problem. The key appears to keep some crystals of the electrolyte on the bottom of the container at all times. Incidentally, I switched to sodium carbonate from the borax since that is used for rust repair. Does your supply have a current setting adjustment? That makes the job a lot easier. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 8:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites I just won a 0-30V 5A power supply on eBay. Now I need to save up for a coup'la nickels. (I really AM going to scoop up some free Borax!)
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I don't want to frighten people away from trying things. Playing with electrochemistry can be a way to learn about it, and to start to get a sense for what has happened in the field. Chuck's experiences with things getting gunked up, for example. CF anodes (the electrode connected to the positive terminal of the power supply) tend to dissolve. They all do, to some degree. Platinum will be found, after a time, depositied on the cathode. But it's slow for platinum, I understand. I've got lots of stainless steel (316L steel) *yarn*, it happens to be a business of mine (12 micron wires, twisted 2x275 of them, soft), but I'm worried that the complex alloy involved would put too much weird stuff into the soup, so I'm planning on staying with platinum for a while. If you use a piece of gold as an anode, it dissolves and plates the cathode with gold, Dennis Letts does this to create his overcoating of gold in his dual laser experiments. Electrolyis of water produces hydrogen and oxygen, and, unless one or the other is differentially absorbed, the mixture that will come off of a cell is exactly the explosive mixture. So, unless you really know what you are doing, you don't want to allow the gases to accumulate. If they do, any spark could set off an explosion. I read an account of an early amateur who wanted to try the experiment and wanted to recycle the heavy water. After all, it's quite expensive, plus a lot of energy escapes with the uncombusted gases, so the *actual* energy output is larger than might appear. So he got this bright idea, set up a spark gap and keep igniting it, in a closed cell. He did. The contents of the cell ended up on his ceiling, and it could have been much worse. When the catalytic converter failed in an SRI closed-cell experiment in the 1990s, and then, when the researcher picked up the cell and jarred the converter into suddenly working, the cell exploded, and it was fatal to the researcher and I understand Mike McKubre still has glass in his body from then. So be careful. Really. I recommend, especially, keeping things small until you know how a small experiment behaves. And if someone wants to try the real deal, i.e, PdD, I do have all the necessary materials for a Galileo Project (SPAWAR) replication or the like, contact me directly. (If someone comes up with a reproducible and reasonably safe experiment with NiH, I'd be interesting in supplying kits.)
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
How about a Hoffman tube to capture the hydrogen and a wall mart aerator for a fish tank to circulate it back up thru the electrolyte – the excess would escape but pure hydrogen could be obtained from a small plastic tube stuck up inside at the top of the Hoffman tube running down to a circulator pump - if we are trying to load something with hydrogen then anything that increases the hydrogen crossing the surface areas of the lattice should be a plus? Fran From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At the moment my hydrogen loading system is taking 1 amp at about 20 volts. The voltage reading varies greatly depending upon the spacing between the electrodes as expected with a resistive electrolyte. I'm enjoying the crazy tabletop experiment a little more than I should. Let's see -- a nickel coin, pencil lead, borax ... Maybe you can work out and document a simple protocol for others, and then do large run of the experiments, and, using statistical analysis, show that there's a significant difference in the integrated temperature series in the cell with the nickel versus the cell with the pencil lead. Just for fun, you could use a simple mercury thermometer rather than something fancy; there would be no end to the amusement if LENR could be convincingly established using stuff that can be found in one's home. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com I don't want to frighten people away from trying things. Playing with electrochemistry can be a way to learn about it, and to start to get a sense for what has happened in the field. I plan to run mine outside (either in the open, or under my carport, or in a tent). I don't have the details on my power supply ... I expect it to have a current-limiting feature. Belt : I'll add a resistor in the path so even if the rig shorts out the current will be limited Braces : I'll maybe add a car fuse in the circuit : 12V would be easy to use -- would I scale 2A up or down for 6V? (I'll presume the same wattage)
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: How about a Hoffman tube to capture the hydrogen and a wall mart aerator for a fish tank to circulate it back up thru the electrolyte – the excess would escape but pure hydrogen could be obtained from a small plastic tube stuck up inside at the top of the Hoffman tube running down to a circulator pump - if we are trying to load something with hydrogen then anything that increases the hydrogen crossing the surface areas of the lattice should be a plus? Those sound like good choices. Ideally the components would be something you could buy at Walmart and Radio Shack for under 50 dollars each. There is a group of crazy musicians that try to make music using old 8-bit processors; the challenge here would be a similar one. If a reproducible lo-fi protocol could be worked out, someone could write to Nathan Lewis and say, we took a look at your objections in 1989 to the calorimetry and think we might have found a way around some of the difficulties ... Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I am running my experiment outside upon a glass table on an open porch. The thought of free hydrogen indoors concerned me. If your supply has a short circuit current adjustment then you may not need further protection. That is what I am using and there have been no problems thus far as I occasionally short the electrodes. The 12 volt source may be marginal unless you place your electrodes close together. My setup typically runs at 16 volts and on occasions reaches 20 or more as I move the electrodes around. The lowest I have seen is about 10 volts when the pencil lead and nickel are very close. I have been seeking a constant current through the nickel versus a constant power into the system since the resistance of the electrolyte is dominate. If I decide to do accurate power measurements then I may have to construct a more tightly controlled arrangement. At this point I am learning about electrolysis and what works and does not work regarding the inactive electrode. Of course I often finger test for any excess temperature rise of the nickel compared to the electrolyte. I am hoping that I do not get a nasty burn if LENR activity begins in earnest. Both the nickel and the electrolyte are running warm and close to the same temperature so far. If you are asking about the fuse rating for a 12 or 6 volt system, it should mainly depend upon the current rating of the fuse itself and not the voltage. If you are interested in constant power, then the product of the supply voltage and supply current equals the power being delivered. I am assuming you are using DC in your test. I would be concerned that 6 volts is not adequate if you wish to run 1 amp through your nickel. Most likely the electrode spacing would need to be too small. I often see a nice vortex of tiny hydrogen bubbles flowing on the surface of my electrolyte and there is an amazing quantity of fluid movement caused by the electrolysis. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 10:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com I don't want to frighten people away from trying things. Playing with electrochemistry can be a way to learn about it, and to start to get a sense for what has happened in the field. I plan to run mine outside (either in the open, or under my carport, or in a tent). I don't have the details on my power supply ... I expect it to have a current-limiting feature. Belt : I'll add a resistor in the path so even if the rig shorts out the current will be limited Braces : I'll maybe add a car fuse in the circuit : 12V would be easy to use -- would I scale 2A up or down for 6V? (I'll presume the same wattage)
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Eric, have you heard the expression that you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink? He would probably refuse to consider your proposal. I am not sure that re circulating the hydrogen would make a great deal of difference to the loading since the electrolysis exerts a powerful force as it stands. It might be worth a try if the system does not get too expensive or complex to control. I keep my fingers crossed and hope for positive results. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 11:15 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: How about a Hoffman tube to capture the hydrogen and a wall mart aerator for a fish tank to circulate it back up thru the electrolyte – the excess would escape but pure hydrogen could be obtained from a small plastic tube stuck up inside at the top of the Hoffman tube running down to a circulator pump - if we are trying to load something with hydrogen then anything that increases the hydrogen crossing the surface areas of the lattice should be a plus? Those sound like good choices. Ideally the components would be something you could buy at Walmart and Radio Shack for under 50 dollars each. There is a group of crazy musicians that try to make music using old 8-bit processors; the challenge here would be a similar one. If a reproducible lo-fi protocol could be worked out, someone could write to Nathan Lewis and say, we took a look at your objections in 1989 to the calorimetry and think we might have found a way around some of the difficulties ... Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have been seeking a constant current through the nickel versus a constant power into the system since the resistance of the electrolyte is dominate. High resistivity is not necessarily an issue, per se. In the Pd/D electrolysis experiments, as the palladium is loaded with deuterium, the resistivity goes up. Often the target loading is 0.95 or higher, so it seems likely that there is a lot of resistivity in a good run in such experiments. I think a common belief is that it is the *flux* of deuterium that is important in those experiments; whether the deuterium is entering the substrate or leaving it does not matter. Assuming a parallel can be drawn with Ni/H electrolysis, an AC current might not be undesirable in itself, unless it somehow messes up some other important variable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I would be concerned about the cost of platinum. Stainless steel might work since it is un reactive. The problem of cost is an important one, since we're talking about a tabletop experiment. The danger of falling back upon unreactive materials such as gold, carbon and stainless steel is that they are only relatively inert under chemical reactions. Under proton or deuteron capture, for example, they are quite reactive: - 197Au + p - 194Pt + α + 8.4 MeV - 197Au + D - 199Hg + 11 MeV - 12C + D - 13C + p + 2.7 MeV - 52Cr + p - 53Mn + 6.6 MeV (chromium is an ingredient in stainless steel) I appreciate that there is no consensus on this list that proton and deuteron capture are taking place, and beyond that, there is incredulity. But people such as Ed Storms take the possibility seriously, and the numbers are very suggestive when one looks at the transmutation results in the aggregate. So if it might be the case that these processes are occurring, this dimension can be included in a search for suitable controls as well as possibly being used for further investigation. Not taking it into account could lead to frustrated attempts to find a blank -- and it occurs to me that this itself is an interesting detail. Taking a second look at carbon, I see that it is inert under proton capture, so graphite might actually be a good choice or hydrogen-1 after all (but not hydrogen-2). But at the moment I'm looking at data for an experiment in which palladium was used with hydrogen-1; along the lines I've been suggesting in previous posts, this would be a good combination for a control run, since proton capture is not energetically favorable in palladium. This turns out to be too simplistic an approach, however; in the case of this experiment, the choice of electrolyte, Na2CO3, appears to have been important, and isotope shifts in the vicinity of sodium were observed, in addition to many others. For similar reasons, the material of the container could be important -- teflon (with carbon and fluorine in it), pyrex (with boron) and stainless steel, for example, might all be susceptible to whatever processes are taking place within the active material nearby. So if proton and deuteron capture are occurring, the search for a control may need to take into account not just the substrate and the isotope of hydrogen, but the composition of the electrolyte and container as well. Once we start talking about deuterium, the search for a control system that meets the present criteria becomes nearly impossible, because deuterium can combine in exothermic reactions with itself. Under those circumstances, going with the present assumptions, the substrate need not be anything more than a matrix that facilitates the various reactions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I read that carbon rods could be obtained at craft stores so I might take a trip to find one if my stainless is a problem. Did someone mention that iron might be a catalyst in Rossi's device? I guess I might get some for this experiment by default. Originally, I was using a second nickel for the electrode attached to the power supply positive terminal. The problem I encountered with this choice was that apparently copper oxide or nickel oxide forms very quickly in this arrangement which greatly increased the resistance of the system. I had to clean off the green mess quite often to keep the current at a modest level. Unfortunately, I did not have any carbon around to try, so I used the best alternative which was stainless. I have noticed that it is tarnishing now after several hours of operation and, as you suggest, it might ruin the plating of the test nickel. I bought some borax at the grocery for an electrolyte and today discovered that people are using the sodium carbonate that you list below to repair rust damage to metals. It is not clear why one would be better than the other since both negative ions are non reactive. The original discussion about this experiment pointed to the use of borax. I will use whichever is agreed upon. I had a mischievous thought of heating the hydrogen loaded nickel in some manner to see if that started a reaction. I am afraid to work with hydrogen tanks due to fire and explosion hazard so a Rossi type device is off limits, but nothing would prevent me from just heating the nickel in air. I am not concerned that a major explosion is possible since I would be surprised if any extra heat is released at all! This set of experiments is mainly being conducted for me to learn about electrolysis and electroplating. Any LENR activity would be welcome but not expected with my crude setup. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 2:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I would be concerned about the cost of platinum. Stainless steel might work since it is un reactive. The problem of cost is an important one, since we're talking about a tabletop experiment. The danger of falling back upon unreactive materials such as gold, carbon and stainless steel is that they are only relatively inert under chemical reactions. Under proton or deuteron capture, for example, they are quite reactive: - 197Au + p - 194Pt + α + 8.4 MeV - 197Au + D - 199Hg + 11 MeV - 12C + D - 13C + p + 2.7 MeV - 52Cr + p - 53Mn + 6.6 MeV (chromium is an ingredient in stainless steel) I appreciate that there is no consensus on this list that proton and deuteron capture are taking place, and beyond that, there is incredulity. But people such as Ed Storms take the possibility seriously, and the numbers are very suggestive when one looks at the transmutation results in the aggregate. So if it might be the case that these processes are occurring, this dimension can be included in a search for suitable controls as well as possibly being used for further investigation. Not taking it into account could lead to frustrated attempts to find a blank -- and it occurs to me that this itself is an interesting detail. Taking a second look at carbon, I see that it is inert under proton capture, so graphite might actually be a good choice or hydrogen-1 after all (but not hydrogen-2). But at the moment I'm looking at data for an experiment in which palladium was used with hydrogen-1; along the lines I've been suggesting in previous posts, this would be a good combination for a control run, since proton capture is not energetically favorable in palladium. This turns out to be too simplistic an approach, however; in the case of this experiment, the choice of electrolyte, Na2CO3, appears to have been important, and isotope shifts in the vicinity of sodium were observed, in addition to many others. For similar reasons, the material of the container could be important -- teflon (with carbon and fluorine in it), pyrex (with boron) and stainless steel, for example, might all be susceptible to whatever processes are taking place within the active material nearby. So if proton and deuteron capture are occurring, the search for a control may need to take into account not just the substrate and the isotope of hydrogen, but the composition of the electrolyte and container as well. Once we start talking about deuterium, the search for a control system that meets the present criteria becomes nearly impossible, because deuterium can combine in exothermic reactions with itself. Under those circumstances, going with the present assumptions, the substrate need not be anything more than a matrix that facilitates the various reactions
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:36 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I read that carbon rods could be obtained at craft stores so I might take a trip to find one if my stainless is a problem. Did someone mention that iron might be a catalyst in Rossi's device? I guess I might get some for this experiment by default. Wikipedia says that US nickels are 75 percent copper. If you don't want copper increasing resistivity (and Joule heating) you might need to look for something other than US nickels. Pure nickel in natural abundances will not be expected to do anything under hydrogen-1 capture, by the way, although short-lived isotopes of it will. Nearby isotopes, such as copper and cobalt, can participate. So if proton or deuteron capture are what are happening, this suggests that Andrea Rossi really does need a catalyst, or he needs nickel with impurities, and it gives support to the idea that constantan would be better than pure nickel. I had a mischievous thought of heating the hydrogen loaded nickel in some manner to see if that started a reaction. I personally like this idea, although it does sound dangerous. It's hard to imagine what people are thinking when they take vessels of hydrogen and some material and then pressurize them to many atmospheres and heat them to high temperatures. That sounds like a death wish. From what I've seen with transitions in carbon under deuteron capture, oxygen will evolve, so if there are any carbon-based impurities, you will have a nice combination of: oxygen, deuterium, heat, high pressure. Given the possibility of the electrolyte participating in the reaction as well as all of the challenges of electrolysis, I wonder whether gas phase systems might do a better job at controlling some of the important variables. The gas phase systems eliminate questions about the electrolyte and, in some setups, the question of input power. As Jed has mentioned, in some gas phase systems you can simply expose the active material to ambient, unheated hydrogen and you'll see an effect -- these are the zeolite experiments, I think. I kind of like Nick Reiter's approach, here. He's getting around the difficulty of working with pressurized hydrogen by using a KH slurry that releases hydrogen. One unknown here is what happens to the potassium, since it will transition to argon under proton capture. I believe he is heating his setup. Nothing I say here should discourage you from using electrolysis or otherwise affect how you do your experiment! I'm part of the peanut gallery. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I think replicators should read carefully this section of what chuck says: Just so know how machined the coins into electrodes; I just used a hacksaw and made two cuts into the coin to make a tab, and then bent it up with needle nose pliers. The tab was about 1/8 thick and stood about 1/2 tall. The end result was a little C-shaped electrode. I would think that cutting and bending might create numerous NAE sites. This step may be very important. - Original Message - From: David Roberson lt;dlrober...@aol.comgt; To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:36:13 - (UTC) Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites I read that carbon rods could be obtained at craft stores so I might take a trip to find one if my stainless is a problem. Did someone mention that iron might be a catalyst in Rossi's device? I guess I might get some for this experiment by default. Originally, I was using a second nickel for the electrode attached to the power supply positive terminal. The problem I encountered with this choice was that apparently copper oxide or nickel oxide forms very quickly in this arrangement which greatly increased the resistance of the system. I had to clean off the green mess quite often to keep the current at a modest level. Unfortunately, I did not have any carbon around to try, so I used the best alternative which was stainless. I have noticed that it is tarnishing now after several hours of operation and, as you suggest, it might ruin the plating of the test nickel. I bought some borax at the grocery for an electrolyte and today discovered that people are using the sodium carbonate that you list below to repair rust damage to metals. It is not clear why one would be better than the other since both negative ions are non reactive. The original discussion about this experiment pointed to the use of borax. I will use whichever is agreed upon. I had a mischievous thought of heating the hydrogen loaded nickel in some manner to see if that started a reaction. I am afraid to work with hydrogen tanks due to fire and explosion hazard so a Rossi type device is off limits, but nothing would prevent me from just heating the nickel in air. I am not concerned that a major explosion is possible since I would be surprised if any extra heat is released at all! This set of experiments is mainly being conducted for me to learn about electrolysis and electroplating. Any LENR activity would be welcome but not expected with my crude setup. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 2:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I would be concerned about the cost of platinum. Stainless steel might work since it is un reactive. The problem of cost is an important one, since we're talking about a tabletop experiment. The danger of falling back upon unreactive materials such as gold, carbon and stainless steel is that they are only relatively inert under chemical reactions. Under proton or deuteron capture, for example, they are quite reactive: - 197Au + p - 194Pt + α + 8.4 MeV - 197Au + D - 199Hg + 11 MeV - 12C + D - 13C + p + 2.7 MeV - 52Cr + p - 53Mn + 6.6 MeV (chromium is an ingredient in stainless steel) I appreciate that there is no consensus on this list that proton and deuteron capture are taking place, and beyond that, there is incredulity. But people such as Ed Storms take the possibility seriously, and the numbers are very suggestive when one looks at the transmutation results in the aggregate. So if it might be the case that these processes are occurring, this dimension can be included in a search for suitable controls as well as possibly being used for further investigation. Not taking it into account could lead to frustrated attempts to find a blank -- and it occurs to me that this itself is an interesting detail. Taking a second look at carbon, I see that it is inert under proton capture, so graphite might actually be a good choice or hydrogen-1 after all (but not hydrogen-2). But at the moment I'm looking at data for an experiment in which palladium was used with hydrogen-1; along the lines I've been suggesting in previous posts, this would be a good combination for a control run, since proton capture is not energetically favorable in palladium. This turns out to be too simplistic an approach, however; in the case of this experiment, the choice of electrolyte, Na2CO3, appears to have been important, and isotope shifts in the vicinity of sodium were observed, in addition to many others. For similar reasons, the material of the container could be important -- teflon (with carbon and fluorine in it), pyrex (with boron) and stainless steel, for example, might all be susceptible to whatever processes
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: John Page johnp...@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:41:11 AM I would think that cutting and bending might create numerous NAE sites. This step may be very important. I always point out that the initial replicators should heed the alchemists, and follow the instructions exactly, regardless of how stupid they think they are, or how the experiment could be improved. The eye of newt may contain key trace elements.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Nickel Coin LENR Experiment http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/nickel-coin-lenr-experiment/ Mostly a quote and summary of vortex.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Eric, I chose the nickel since it has a composition that resembles the wire used by Celani in his recent demonstration. This was recommended by someone else and I thought the idea was great. Nickels are easy to come by. Today I picked up some pencil lead of .9 mm size #2 and replaced my stainless steel electrode. By this time the stainless has some serious stains and rust appears to be in my electrolyte. Meanwhile I located some sodium carbonate by Arm Hammer to use instead of the borax. I just began the experiment about an hour ago and one thing stands out already. Thus far I have a clean electrolyte instead of one loaded with all kinds of oxides. Initially I was worried about the 1 amp flowing through the pencil lead but it does not seem to get hot and should last under this condition. It just appears so tiny when I am used to large diameter wires. This is a learning experience for me and I notice something rather interesting that I am sure is common knowledge among experienced platers. I measure a voltage drop of approximately 2.5 volts from the nickel electrode to the very close by electrolyte. I noted about the same drop when using the stainless steel electrode. This represents a power dissipation of 2.5 watts that seems to be within the electrolyte active region surrounding the electrodes. Most of my wasted power is merely heating the electrolyte directly due to ohmic loss. Perhaps I should delay heating of a hydrogen loaded nickel as it might be risky. I will attempt that when I am feeling lucky. At the moment my hydrogen loading system is taking 1 amp at about 20 volts. The voltage reading varies greatly depending upon the spacing between the electrodes as expected with a resistive electrolyte. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:36 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I read that carbon rods could be obtained at craft stores so I might take a trip to find one if my stainless is a problem. Did someone mention that iron might be a catalyst in Rossi's device? I guess I might get some for this experiment by default. Wikipedia says that US nickels are 75 percent copper. If you don't want copper increasing resistivity (and Joule heating) you might need to look for something other than US nickels. Pure nickel in natural abundances will not be expected to do anything under hydrogen-1 capture, by the way, although short-lived isotopes of it will. Nearby isotopes, such as copper and cobalt, can participate. So if proton or deuteron capture are what are happening, this suggests that Andrea Rossi really does need a catalyst, or he needs nickel with impurities, and it gives support to the idea that constantan would be better than pure nickel. I had a mischievous thought of heating the hydrogen loaded nickel in some manner to see if that started a reaction. I personally like this idea, although it does sound dangerous. It's hard to imagine what people are thinking when they take vessels of hydrogen and some material and then pressurize them to many atmospheres and heat them to high temperatures. That sounds like a death wish. From what I've seen with transitions in carbon under deuteron capture, oxygen will evolve, so if there are any carbon-based impurities, you will have a nice combination of: oxygen, deuterium, heat, high pressure. Given the possibility of the electrolyte participating in the reaction as well as all of the challenges of electrolysis, I wonder whether gas phase systems might do a better job at controlling some of the important variables. The gas phase systems eliminate questions about the electrolyte and, in some setups, the question of input power. As Jed has mentioned, in some gas phase systems you can simply expose the active material to ambient, unheated hydrogen and you'll see an effect -- these are the zeolite experiments, I think. I kind of like Nick Reiter's approach, here. He's getting around the difficulty of working with pressurized hydrogen by using a KH slurry that releases hydrogen. One unknown here is what happens to the potassium, since it will transition to argon under proton capture. I believe he is heating his setup. Nothing I say here should discourage you from using electrolysis or otherwise affect how you do your experiment! I'm part of the peanut gallery. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At the moment my hydrogen loading system is taking 1 amp at about 20 volts. The voltage reading varies greatly depending upon the spacing between the electrodes as expected with a resistive electrolyte. I'm enjoying the crazy tabletop experiment a little more than I should. Let's see -- a nickel coin, pencil lead, borax ... Maybe you can work out and document a simple protocol for others, and then do large run of the experiments, and, using statistical analysis, show that there's a significant difference in the integrated temperature series in the cell with the nickel versus the cell with the pencil lead. Just for fun, you could use a simple mercury thermometer rather than something fancy; there would be no end to the amusement if LENR could be convincingly established using stuff that can be found in one's home. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
The first extremely crude experiment is to learn how to handle the components. That seems to be coming along well when you look at the first approach where I used table salt and two nickels. Next, it was with sodium bromide which behaved quite a bit better but still was seriously gooping up the electrolyte when two nickels were used. It was hard to keep the oxide layer clean enough to get any significant current into the system. Of course I had to find something less reactive so I obtained a stainless steel child's table spoon for the inactive electrode. This setup works far better than the others, but after many hours of running the stainless forgot it was not supposed to stain. The electrolyte started to have a rust color and I decided to improve things. So, I purchased a better known electrolyte which is sodium carbonate and some mechanical pencil leads. The tiny lead can apparently handle 1 amp of current and is holding up well thus far. My electrolyte is still very clear and there are no noticeable deposits within it. Furthermore, now my nickel which is connected to the negative supply terminal does not show any tarnish whatsoever. I can not detect a line on its surface where the electrolyte line occurs either. I guess you could say my technique has improved significantly! I plan to let this system run for a few days and see if anything unusual shows up. Later I might make the setup far more controlled if anything of interest appears. That is when I will use a thermal probe of some sorts and might begin accurate documentation. I am still learning the basics and want to try several insane ideas before I get too serious. It really would be incredible if it is possible to construct a simple LENR device at home, but at the moment I am betting that it is not going to work. Eric, you should put one of these into operation to improve the chances of success. The same applies to others of the vortex, there is plenty of room available for you to join in and have a bit of fun. I am seeing a significant quantity of hydrogen bubbling off the nickel and oxygen leaving the pencil lead. There is a temptation to light a match Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 9:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At the moment my hydrogen loading system is taking 1 amp at about 20 volts. The voltage reading varies greatly depending upon the spacing between the electrodes as expected with a resistive electrolyte. I'm enjoying the crazy tabletop experiment a little more than I should. Let's see -- a nickel coin, pencil lead, borax ... Maybe you can work out and document a simple protocol for others, and then do large run of the experiments, and, using statistical analysis, show that there's a significant difference in the integrated temperature series in the cell with the nickel versus the cell with the pencil lead. Just for fun, you could use a simple mercury thermometer rather than something fancy; there would be no end to the amusement if LENR could be convincingly established using stuff that can be found in one's home. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
At 08:29 PM 9/23/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.comdlrober...@aol.com wrote: At the moment my hydrogen loading system is taking 1 amp at about 20 volts.  The voltage reading varies greatly depending upon the spacing between the electrodes as expected with a resistive electrolyte. I'm enjoying the crazy tabletop experiment a little more than I should. Let's see -- a nickel coin, pencil lead, borax ...  Maybe you can work out and document a simple protocol for others, and then do large run of the experiments, and, using statistical analysis, show that there's a significant difference in the integrated temperature series in the cell with the nickel versus the cell with the pencil lead.  Just for fun, you could use a simple mercury thermometer rather than something fancy; there would be no end to the amusement if LENR could be convincingly established using stuff that can be found in one's home. Sure. It's not very likely, though. Still, trying stuff is fun, and you never can tell what you will find. Be careful. You are evolving hydrogen, which is, of course, flammable. I don't think that nickel loads much hydrogen, but I do suggest treating it as flammable. So if you heat it, be prepared for it to start to burn furiously. That would definitely happen with palladium.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I have a pre-tirement house near a Borax source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax_Lake_Site. It was the major US source before those dang mule trains took over. It would be a real doozie if I could just scrape up some salts, hook up the nickels and demonstrate CF// an anomalous heat effect.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
What's the quickest way to do some basic calorimetry ... ? a) Stir the boron and measure the temperature inside and outside the container. b) Compare the measured VA and the delta-T of the solution. c) Use an oscilloscope to check that there are no spikes/abnormal waveforms in the input power. If that show some excess heat, but it's not definitive, estimate the losses: d) Add a resistor, and use it to produce the same temperature/time profile (This is what Godes/McKubre did).
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I would say just measure the temperature of an open beaker containing the boron solution. What you're probably looking after is sudden heat increase due to a kind of LENR effect. If such an effect is occurring you should see different slope of the Temp/time graph you should compose. Such sudden effect likely occurs when a certain hydrogen saturation in the coin metal lattice has occurred. If you want an extra reference you could use a second identical beaker and use only graphite rods in the same solution. Both setups can be connected to the same power supply, but measure the current in both setups, since the 'all graphite' beaker will likely have a different overall resistance. Graphite rods are cheap and can be bough for a few dollars in any art materials shop. On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: What's the quickest way to do some basic calorimetry ... ? a) Stir the boron and measure the temperature inside and outside the container. b) Compare the measured VA and the delta-T of the solution. c) Use an oscilloscope to check that there are no spikes/abnormal waveforms in the input power. If that show some excess heat, but it's not definitive, estimate the losses: d) Add a resistor, and use it to produce the same temperature/time profile (This is what Godes/McKubre did).
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: If you want an extra reference you could use a second identical beaker and use only graphite rods in the same solution. Graphite rods are not necessarily a suitable control. It is possible that graphite will be consumed in a different but related set of reactions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:58:00 AM If you want an extra reference you could use a second identical beaker and use only graphite rods in the same solution. Graphite rods are not necessarily a suitable control. It is possible that graphite will be consumed in a different but related set of reactions. I think that all obvious controls should be tested : nickel, copper ... Chuck reported some. But graphite is probably a good base. AFTER there's a clear excess heat signal we can look into its origins: e) Exothermic Chemical/electroplating effect I'll search for any reaction information. THEN we could look into varying parameters -- Ni% Cu% : boron solutions : other AC/DC/combined waveforms to see if there's a peak : distance between the (Cat/An)odes. The Nickels should be weighed (a gemologist's scale would be fine) to see if weight changes.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I think that all obvious controls should be tested : nickel, copper ... Chuck reported some. But graphite is probably a good base. Sure -- any possible and interesting control should be attempted, and graphite is definitely one. In addition, for a hydrogen-1 gas-loading or light water experiment, I propose either silicon or magnesium as suitable controls. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I've got to set me up a Sites Effect experiment. But it has to be portable (ie outside). What's the total power to bring it to hot status (8 hrs?) I see two options for power : 6V Lantern Battery A 12V Car Starter kit Normal mode seems to have a current limiter, boost mode bypasses it. Gonna look stoopid with a battery clamp clutching a nickel, but what the heck
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com I propose either silicon or magnesium as suitable controls. Ummm Burning or molten magnesium metal reacts violently with water.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Ummm Burning or molten magnesium metal reacts violently with water. Ha! That's right. There's also reason to think platinum would be a suitable control in an H2 gas or light water experiment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Based on comments in this thread you should be prepared to run for considerably more than 8 hours. Give yourself at least a day and then you should be prepared to run for a while if you want to make sure you're observing anything interesting, so call it 48 hours. Again based on comments in the thread, you should be prepared to dissipate 15W. This means having 500 to 750 watt hours of battery capacity available. Obviously, if you only allow yourself 8 hours, you'll only need 1/6 this much battery capacity. I don't *think* there's any problem with disconnecting the power for a few seconds to change batteries, but others with more experience may correct me. If you want to try the AC style experiment you'll need an inverter and you'll need to account for its (in)efficiency. Jeff On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I've got to set me up a Sites Effect experiment. But it has to be portable (ie outside). What's the total power to bring it to hot status (8 hrs?) I see two options for power : 6V Lantern Battery A 12V Car Starter kit Normal mode seems to have a current limiter, boost mode bypasses it. Gonna look stoopid with a battery clamp clutching a nickel, but what the heck
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I would be concerned about the cost of platinum. Stainless steel might work since it is un reactive. I am using an old stainless spoon as my electrode attached to the positive supply terminal and it has been working for a number of hours without getting fouled too badly. This is allowing me to continue to exhaust hydrogen at my nickel terminal. My simple experiment presently runs smoothly at 1 amp of current when 16 volts of DC is applied. The spacing between the small spoon and the nickel is roughly 1 inch. The current is constant since I am using a power supply that allows me to set the short circuit current while the voltage adjusts to compensate for spacing and resistance variation. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Ummm Burning or molten magnesium metal reacts violently with water. Ha! That's right. There's also reason to think platinum would be a suitable control in an H2 gas or light water experiment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I wonder whether anode and cathode are mixed up here. The cathode in such setup generates Hydrogen. Using a coin as cathode enables hydrogen to merge into the coin's metal lattice. Right? On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:25 PM 9/19/2012, Jones Beene wrote: If I had a nickel for every time ... So ... with that caveat in mind, here's a cheap tip about what to do with another cheap tip - all those Buffalo coins you've been saving for the meter ... IOW - there is a ready source of Romanowski alloy for Celani type reactions in your pocket, or center console, as we speak. The U.S. nickel has been a cupronickel since 1913 and the composition is rather similar to Constantan: 75% copper 25% nickel with trace amounts of manganese. Romanowski would approve. Last year I had a private email from Charles (Chuck) Sites --- who has given me permission to post : I was reading Vortex-L and followed your link. I'm an old cold fusion guy but pretty much a lurker. I found your article on Rossi's E-Cat to be very interesting. Here is a story about CF, from 1984 with Pons and Flieshman announced their discovery, I was a young excited physics student, and immediately want to test the concept of CF. I didn't have palladium, nor deuterium. So I was looking for an alternative. I was thinking, Boron has a very large cross section (Q factor) and B11 could easily cold fuse given the right circumstances. So looking at what I had, what would be a good source of Ni? Not knowing it's metal makeup I choose an American nickel 5-cent piece. (75 percent copper, 25 percent Ni) This was the Anode. A source of Boron, would be Borax (Na2B4.10H2O). The cathode, I used graphite. This was hooked up to a 65 Watt 5 Volt supply from an IBM PC. To my surprise, the Nickel got extraordinarily hot. Too hot to touch, and I melted several plastic p tree dish before changing to jars. I was always able to bring pint of water to 80C after running for about 8 hours. Other metals used for the Anode, showed no indications of even being warm. (Steel, Aluminum, Copper, Zinc). So a US 5 cent piece gave great results. I even had a Geiger counter go off once, but it may have been a cosmic ray. Given that, I could never really understand how this Nickel got hot without radiation. I could never get a theory as to how it worked either, in spite of the fact that the experiment is very repeatable.
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Actually, the polarity issue was one of the things that intrigued me about Chuck's results, in the context of AC. With DC and a graphite cathode, the suspicion is that carbon is participating in the heat, BUT Sites says he saw no thermal anomaly with other metals as the anode. Often, in simple experiments, one learns more by what is not seen, than by what is seen. This was the point of trying a crude replication. It requires nothing exotic to do this, and it appears that yes- there is unusual heating with the US 5-cent coins as both anode and cathode, with borax electrolyte, under AC power (~10 watts) compared to using the US penny (copper); and it is time to move this into a lab to document. Caveat, the coins are different sizes, making it difficult to compare apples-to-apples. If you have children or grandchildren with science interests, this simple experiment could mature into a meaningful school project, if nothing else. We need to begin to educate the next generation of fringe scientists :-) and putative excess heating is an ideal way. Here is a classic paper to start with, keeping in mind that Ni-H appears to be demonstrably more active than Pd-D, when done correctly: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf In general, one would expect metal ions to migrate to a cathode, and for hydrogen to form and be released but, with good technique, a percentage of hydrogen can be retained as hydride. Essentially this can happen in the process called co-deposition - and when heavy water is used, the deposition of Pd positive ions onto the cathode happens with deuterons entrained, and you get instant loading. With this in mind, but using AC, one should try to suppress water splitting and Ohmic heating, by large separation of electrodes. Having read and understood the Romanowski paper, there is one other 'trick' to use. You want to get the alloy much closer to optimum, and pure copper does not form hydrides and moreover - is also anti-catalytic for spillover - and worst of all, is more mobile in an electrolyte - so one will benefit from having nickel wire handy as well. From: Teslaalset I wonder whether anode and cathode are mixed up here. The cathode in such setup generates Hydrogen. Using a coin as cathode enables hydrogen to merge into the coin's metal lattice. Right? Alan J Fletcher wrote: If I had a nickel for every time ... So ... with that caveat in mind, here's a cheap tip about what to do with another cheap tip - all those Buffalo coins you've been saving for the meter ... IOW - there is a ready source of Romanowski alloy for Celani type reactions in your pocket, or center console, as we speak. The U.S. nickel has been a cupronickel since 1913 and the composition is rather similar to Constantan: 75% copper 25% nickel with trace amounts of manganese. Romanowski would approve. Last year I had a private email from Charles (Chuck) Sites --- who has given me permission to post : I was reading Vortex-L and followed your link. I'm an old cold fusion guy but pretty much a lurker. I found your article on Rossi's E-Cat to be very interesting. Here is a story about CF, from 1984 with Pons and Flieshman announced their discovery, I was a young excited physics student, and immediately want to test the concept of CF. I didn't have palladium, nor deuterium. So I was looking for an alternative. I was thinking, Boron has a very large cross section (Q factor) and B11 could easily cold fuse given the right circumstances. So looking at what I had, what would be a good source of Ni? Not knowing it's metal makeup I choose an American nickel 5-cent piece. (75 percent copper, 25 percent Ni) This was the Anode. A source of Boron, would be Borax (Na2B4.10H2O). The cathode, I used graphite. This was hooked up to a 65 Watt 5 Volt supply from an IBM PC. To my surprise, the Nickel got extraordinarily hot. Too hot to touch, and I melted several plastic p tree dish before changing to jars. I was always able to bring pint of water to 80C after running for about 8 hours. Other metals used for the Anode, showed no indications of even being warm. (Steel, Aluminum, Copper, Zinc). So a US 5 cent piece gave great results. I even had a Geiger counter go off once, but it may have been a cosmic ray. Given that, I could never really understand how this Nickel got hot
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Jones, did you take pains to keep the wires and connections out of the electrolyte? How did you attach the wires to the coins? Did you do anything special to prepare the surface of the coins, or just use dirty old circulating nickels? ;-) Thanks! Jeff On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Actually, the polarity issue was one of the things that intrigued me about Chuck's results, in the context of AC. With DC and a graphite cathode, the suspicion is that carbon is participating in the heat, BUT Sites says he saw no thermal anomaly with other metals as the anode. Often, in simple experiments, one learns more by what is not seen, than by what is seen. This was the point of trying a crude replication. It requires nothing exotic to do this, and it appears that yes- there is unusual heating with the US 5-cent coins as both anode and cathode, with borax electrolyte, under AC power (~10 watts) compared to using the US penny (copper); and it is time to move this into a lab to document. Caveat, the coins are different sizes, making it difficult to compare apples-to-apples. If you have children or grandchildren with science interests, this simple experiment could mature into a meaningful school project, if nothing else. We need to begin to educate the next generation of fringe scientists :-) and putative excess heating is an ideal way. Here is a classic paper to start with, keeping in mind that Ni-H appears to be demonstrably more active than Pd-D, when done correctly: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf In general, one would expect metal ions to migrate to a cathode, and for hydrogen to form and be released but, with good technique, a percentage of hydrogen can be retained as hydride. Essentially this can happen in the process called co-deposition - and when heavy water is used, the deposition of Pd positive ions onto the cathode happens with deuterons entrained, and you get instant loading. With this in mind, but using AC, one should try to suppress water splitting and Ohmic heating, by large separation of electrodes. Having read and understood the Romanowski paper, there is one other 'trick' to use. You want to get the alloy much closer to optimum, and pure copper does not form hydrides and moreover - is also anti-catalytic for spillover - and worst of all, is more mobile in an electrolyte - so one will benefit from having nickel wire handy as well. From: Teslaalset I wonder whether anode and cathode are mixed up here. The cathode in such setup generates Hydrogen. Using a coin as cathode enables hydrogen to merge into the coin's metal lattice. Right? Alan J Fletcher wrote: If I had a nickel for every time ... So ... with that caveat in mind, here's a cheap tip about what to do with another cheap tip - all those Buffalo coins you've been saving for the meter ... IOW - there is a ready source of Romanowski alloy for Celani type reactions in your pocket, or center console, as we speak. The U.S. nickel has been a cupronickel since 1913 and the composition is rather similar to Constantan: 75% copper 25% nickel with trace amounts of manganese. Romanowski would approve. Last year I had a private email from Charles (Chuck) Sites --- who has given me permission to post : I was reading Vortex-L and followed your link. I'm an old cold fusion guy but pretty much a lurker. I found your article on Rossi's E-Cat to be very interesting. Here is a story about CF, from 1984 with Pons and Flieshman announced their discovery, I was a young excited physics student, and immediately want to test the concept of CF. I didn't have palladium, nor deuterium. So I was looking for an alternative. I was thinking, Boron has a very large cross section (Q factor) and B11 could easily cold fuse given the right circumstances. So looking at what I had, what would be a good source of Ni? Not knowing it's metal makeup I choose an American nickel 5-cent piece. (75 percent copper, 25 percent Ni) This was the Anode. A source of Boron, would be Borax (Na2B4.10H2O). The cathode, I used graphite. This was hooked up to a 65 Watt 5 Volt supply from an IBM PC. To my surprise, the Nickel got extraordinarily hot. Too hot to touch, and I melted several plastic p tree dish before changing to jars. I was always able to bring pint of water to 80C after running for about 8 hours. Other
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I'm trying to record a YT video today. This is much harder than doing the actual experiment. No pains or precautions were used. Alligator clips for leads. This begs to be repeated with greater care. Old coins were cleaned with ultrasound, and the nickels were flash nickel-plated, to get closer to Romanowski, which is the main difference from Chuck's basic procedure. I think you need more than 25% Ni, but try it both ways. There's always something different :-) From: Jeff Berkowitz Jones, did you take pains to keep the wires and connections out of the electrolyte? How did you attach the wires to the coins? Did you do anything special to prepare the surface of the coins, or just use dirty old circulating nickels? ;-) Thanks! Jeff Actually, the polarity issue was one of the things that intrigued me about Chuck's results, in the context of AC. With DC and a graphite cathode, the suspicion is that carbon is participating in the heat, BUT Sites says he saw no thermal anomaly with other metals as the anode. Often, in simple experiments, one learns more by what is not seen, than by what is seen. This was the point of trying a crude replication. It requires nothing exotic to do this, and it appears that yes- there is unusual heating with the US 5-cent coins as both anode and cathode, with borax electrolyte, under AC power (~10 watts) compared to using the US penny (copper); and it is time to move this into a lab to document. Caveat, the coins are different sizes, making it difficult to compare apples-to-apples. If you have children or grandchildren with science interests, this simple experiment could mature into a meaningful school project, if nothing else. We need to begin to educate the next generation of fringe scientists :-) and putative excess heating is an ideal way. Here is a classic paper to start with, keeping in mind that Ni-H appears to be demonstrably more active than Pd-D, when done correctly: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf In general, one would expect metal ions to migrate to a cathode, and for hydrogen to form and be released but, with good technique, a percentage of hydrogen can be retained as hydride. Essentially this can happen in the process called co-deposition - and when heavy water is used, the deposition of Pd positive ions onto the cathode happens with deuterons entrained, and you get instant loading. With this in mind, but using AC, one should try to suppress water splitting and Ohmic heating, by large separation of electrodes. Having read and understood the Romanowski paper, there is one other 'trick' to use. You want to get the alloy much closer to optimum, and pure copper does not form hydrides and moreover - is also anti-catalytic for spillover - and worst of all, is more mobile in an electrolyte - so one will benefit from having nickel wire handy as well. From: Teslaalset I wonder whether anode and cathode are mixed up here. The cathode in such setup generates Hydrogen. Using a coin as cathode enables hydrogen to merge into the coin's metal lattice. Right? Alan J Fletcher wrote: If I had a nickel for every time ... So ... with that caveat in mind, here's a cheap tip about what to do with another cheap tip - all those Buffalo coins you've been saving for the meter ... IOW - there is a ready source of Romanowski alloy for Celani type reactions in your pocket, or center console, as we speak. The U.S. nickel has been a cupronickel since 1913 and the composition is rather similar to Constantan: 75% copper 25% nickel with trace amounts of manganese. Romanowski would approve. Last year I had a private email from Charles (Chuck) Sites --- who has given me permission to post : I was reading Vortex-L and followed your link. I'm an old cold fusion guy but pretty much a lurker. I found your article on Rossi's E-Cat to be very interesting. Here is a story about CF, from 1984 with Pons and Flieshman announced their discovery, I was a young excited physics student, and immediately want to test the concept of CF. I didn't have palladium, nor deuterium. So I was looking for an alternative. I was thinking, Boron has a very large cross section (Q factor) and B11 could easily cold fuse given the right circumstances. So looking at what I had, what would be a good source of Ni? Not knowing it's metal makeup I choose an American nickel 5-cent piece. (75 percent copper, 25 percent Ni) This was the Anode. A source of Boron, would be Borax (Na2B4.10H2O). The cathode, I used graphite. This was hooked
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Hi. I guess I'm no longer a lurker. Fascinating. I can't wait to see the video.Just so know how machined the coins into electrodes; I just used a hacksaw and made two cuts into the coin to make a tab, and then bent it up with needle nose pliers. The tab was about 1/8 thick and stood about 1/2 tall. The end result was a little C- shaped electrode. This was a great shape for a ptree dish and alligator clips. Using a ptree, disk the electrodes are far enough apart that you can't mistake the source of heat. Just by touch, its the nickel. When I switched over to the larger jar size electrolysis of 100ml I took the tab of the coin, and bent it over solid copper wire (from home electrical wiring) and then seal it with clear heat resistant silicon caulk. Just to make clear, the nickel was alway on the + side of the power supply, and is described in wikipedia as the cathode. See the diagram in; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode What I wanted was H+ moving into the metal but now that I think about it, it might be (B4O7)-- moving onto the surface of the coin, and Na2++ moving to the graphite electrode. After running for a period of time, there is a residual charge like a battery when the power supply is removed. Also as a note; I did most of the 100ml (jar) experiments at 12V sub 1amp which I recall performed better. For 100ml I used 3g of Borax.. Also, it might take about a day before the heat shows up, but It never failed. The AC actually worked much faster and really could be co-deposition. I had never thought about that. Best Regards, Chuck
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
You are correct that the cathode or the lead attached to the negative supply is where the hydrogen is released. I have an experiment running at the moment with Borax and two nickels as electrodes. It is taking about 20 volts to get .5 amps of current into the system. So far nothing interesting. Earlier I used table salt as the electrolyte and my nickel attached to the positive supply terminal was dissolved into the solution. I next used a penny there and it too was eaten up. I am going to review electrolysis theory soon to understand why this happened. Dave -Original Message- From: Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 21, 2012 6:40 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites I wonder whether anode and cathode are mixed up here. The cathode in such setup generates Hydrogen. Using a coin as cathode enables hydrogen to merge into the coin's metal lattice. Right? On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:25 PM 9/19/2012, Jones Beene wrote: If I had a nickel for every time ... So ... with that caveat in mind, here's a cheap tip about what to do with another cheap tip - all those Buffalo coins you've been saving for the meter ... IOW - there is a ready source of Romanowski alloy for Celani type reactions in your pocket, or center console, as we speak. The U.S. nickel has been a cupronickel since 1913 and the composition is rather similar to Constantan: 75% copper 25% nickel with trace amounts of manganese. Romanowski would approve. Last year I had a private email from Charles (Chuck) Sites --- who has given me permission to post : I was reading Vortex-L and followed your link. I'm an old cold fusion guy but pretty much a lurker. I found your article on Rossi's E-Cat to be very interesting. Here is a story about CF, from 1984 with Pons and Flieshman announced their discovery, I was a young excited physics student, and immediately want to test the concept of CF. I didn't have palladium, nor deuterium. So I was looking for an alternative. I was thinking, Boron has a very large cross section (Q factor) and B11 could easily cold fuse given the right circumstances. So looking at what I had, what would be a good source of Ni? Not knowing it's metal makeup I choose an American nickel 5-cent piece. (75 percent copper, 25 percent Ni) This was the Anode. A source of Boron, would be Borax (Na2B4.10H2O). The cathode, I used graphite. This was hooked up to a 65 Watt 5 Volt supply from an IBM PC. To my surprise, the Nickel got extraordinarily hot. Too hot to touch, and I melted several plastic p tree dish before changing to jars. I was always able to bring pint of water to 80C after running for about 8 hours. Other metals used for the Anode, showed no indications of even being warm. (Steel, Aluminum, Copper, Zinc). So a US 5 cent piece gave great results. I even had a Geiger counter go off once, but it may have been a cosmic ray. Given that, I could never really understand how this Nickel got hot without radiation. I could never get a theory as to how it worked either, in spite of the fact that the experiment is very repeatable.
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: Chuck Sites Just to make clear, the nickel was always on the + side of the power supply, and is described in Wikipedia as the cathode. Hmm . I'm usually the mildly dyslexic one, but someone is confused: the + or positively charged electrode is the anode in an electrolytic cell, which is what we are talking about - and the cathode is negative (attracts protons and positive ions). In a battery, this terminology is reversed, which is probably what they are referring to. Technically a battery is a galvanic cell, not an electrolytic cell, since it supplies power. However, to confuse things even more, when the battery is being charged, instead of supplying charge, it becomes electrolytic. You could win a bet on that one (or lose it).
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Interesting, but my nickel on the minus side of the supply is the one releasing large quantities of tiny gas bubbles. The one attached to the positive supply terminal was dissolved earlier with table salt but looks like it will survive with borax. I went around and around with this one before I thought I understood which terminal is connected to which for the device to operate properly. I think that the positive charge of the H+ group is attracted to the negative battery terminal. Wikipedia makes this statement as well. So, I believe the hydrogen is released to the nickel attached to this negative supply terminal. If you are confident that this is wrong please explain your understanding as I would be interested. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 21, 2012 4:44 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites From:Chuck Sites Just to make clear, the nickel was always on the +side of the power supply, and is described in Wikipedia as the cathode. Hmm … I’m usually the mildlydyslexic one, but someone is confused: the + or positively charged electrode isthe “anode” in an electrolytic cell, which is what we are talkingabout - and the “cathode” is negative (attractsprotons and positive ions). In a battery, this terminology is reversed, which is probably what theyare referring to. Technically a battery is a galvanic cell, not an electrolyticcell, since it supplies power. However, to confuse things even more, when thebattery is being charged, instead of supplying charge, it becomes electrolytic.You could win a bet on that one (or lose it).
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I got email on the from a lurker about this too. Agree. In an electrolytic cell, the cathode is the one connected to the negative terminal of the power supply, and this is the business end for H2. Jeff On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, but my nickel on the minus side of the supply is the one releasing large quantities of tiny gas bubbles. The one attached to the positive supply terminal was dissolved earlier with table salt but looks like it will survive with borax. I went around and around with this one before I thought I understood which terminal is connected to which for the device to operate properly. I think that the positive charge of the H+ group is attracted to the negative battery terminal. Wikipedia makes this statement as well. So, I believe the hydrogen is released to the nickel attached to this negative supply terminal. If you are confident that this is wrong please explain your understanding as I would be interested. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 21, 2012 4:44 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites *From:* Chuck Sites Just to make clear, the nickel was always on the + side of the power supply, and is described in Wikipedia as the cathode. Hmm … I’m usually the mildly dyslexic one, but someone is confused: the + or positively charged electrode is the “anode” in an electrolytic cell, which is what we are talking about - and the “cathode” is negative (attracts protons and positive ions). In a battery, this terminology is reversed, which is probably what they are referring to. Technically a battery is a galvanic cell, not an electrolytic cell, since it supplies power. However, to confuse things even more, when the battery is being charged, instead of supplying charge, it becomes electrolytic. You could win a bet on that one (or lose it).
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
It will be interesting to see what you all get. I guess if your using two nickels, its not going to matter which is plus and which is minus. Your correct David, hydrogen should evolve from the negative terminal. Looking back at some old notes, It was on the plus side of the power supply (and I have it noted as not what's expected). Also, in one run, I used solid copper electrical wiring as the cathode, which made a nice green solution after several days of running (the Nickel was the heat source though). Regardless, it does take long time to get going 8 to 10 hrs and then sometime the current should go really high and the little coin heats up. I think I will join you all in the recreation, but I've been wanting to do the AC experiment with DC pre-charging. That is, have 3 electrodes, two Nickel, one Carbon Graphite, and where the two nickels are on the negative terminal, the graphite on the positive. Let that undergo electrolysis for several days, and then disconnect the DC, and put the nickels under an AC current of 15V. That should slosh the hydrogen back and forth in the lattice and across the surface. If there is enough boron in the mix knocked loss from from the borax that falls on the surface of the nickel, it might work. Anyway, good luck. I look forward to hearing about your all's results. Best Regards, Chuck --- On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, but my nickel on the minus side of the supply is the one releasing large quantities of tiny gas bubbles. The one attached to the positive supply terminal was dissolved earlier with table salt but looks like it will survive with borax. I went around and around with this one before I thought I understood which terminal is connected to which for the device to operate properly. I think that the positive charge of the H+ group is attracted to the negative battery terminal. Wikipedia makes this statement as well. So, I believe the hydrogen is released to the nickel attached to this negative supply terminal. If you are confident that this is wrong please explain your understanding as I would be interested. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 21, 2012 4:44 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites *From:* Chuck Sites Just to make clear, the nickel was always on the + side of the power supply, and is described in Wikipedia as the cathode. Hmm … I’m usually the mildly dyslexic one, but someone is confused: the + or positively charged electrode is the “anode” in an electrolytic cell, which is what we are talking about - and the “cathode” is negative (attracts protons and positive ions). In a battery, this terminology is reversed, which is probably what they are referring to. Technically a battery is a galvanic cell, not an electrolytic cell, since it supplies power. However, to confuse things even more, when the battery is being charged, instead of supplying charge, it becomes electrolytic. You could win a bet on that one (or lose it).
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
At 04:14 PM 9/21/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I got email on the from a lurker about this too. Agree. In an electrolytic cell, the cathode is the one connected to the negative terminal of the power supply, and this is the business end for H2. And with AC the ends will alternate?
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
OK Chuck, I was confident in what I was seeing with my eyes. The quantity of tiny bubbles coming from the nickel attached to the negative terminal was far larger than the few on the other one. I chose two nickels just in case I did not make the proper decision and it looked as though it should work. I was impatient and tried sodium chloride for a quick first run and what a mess it made. A large quantity of precipitation of yellow goop collected within my electrolyte while the nickel attached to the positive terminal was dissolved. I then tried a penny in that position and it also was eaten. After that bad start, I decided to buy some borax at the grocery store. I threw away the bad fluid and started over. Both nickels were also replaced and enough borax was put into the container to leave some un dissolved after a lot of mixing. I have the liquid level at approximately half dept to the nickels which are held in place by gator clips. The clips are totally out of the mixture and held steady by a small tubing with rubber bands. I can easily lift the tubing and inspect the nickels to check for any temperature rise. Thus far the liquid is the source of heat due to its relatively large resistance and loss. A current of .5 amps is drawn when typically 20 volts DC is applied with the latest mixture with the coins roughly a quarter inch apart. The table salt was far more conductive than the borax electrolyte. With my concentration I was able to achieve 2 amps of current when less than 10 volts was applied and the coins were 2 inches apart. I guess the chlorine was too active compared to oxygen to give me so much trouble. I have a good supply attached to my test circuit. It is a lab one that allows control of the short circuit current as well as the supply voltage output. My main interest in this test is to learn a bit about electrolysis and, if extremely fortunate, see some strange heating. There is no better way to learn about a subject than to get ones hands dirty. Dave -Original Message- From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 21, 2012 7:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites It will be interesting to see what you all get. I guess if your using two nickels, its not going to matter which is plus and which is minus. Your correct David, hydrogen should evolve from the negative terminal. Looking back at some old notes, It was on the plus side of the power supply (and I have it noted as not what's expected). Also, in one run, I used solid copper electrical wiring as the cathode, which made a nice green solution after several days of running (the Nickel was the heat source though). Regardless, it does take long time to get going 8 to 10 hrs and then sometime the current should go really high and the little coin heats up. I think I will join you all in the recreation, but I've been wanting to do the AC experiment with DC pre-charging. That is, have 3 electrodes, two Nickel, one Carbon Graphite, and where the two nickels are on the negative terminal, the graphite on the positive. Let that undergo electrolysis for several days, and then disconnect the DC, and put the nickels under an AC current of 15V. That should slosh the hydrogen back and forth in the lattice and across the surface. If there is enough boron in the mix knocked loss from from the borax that falls on the surface of the nickel, it might work. Anyway, good luck. I look forward to hearing about your all's results. Best Regards, Chuck --- On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, but my nickel on the minus side of the supply is the one releasing large quantities of tiny gas bubbles. The one attached to the positive supply terminal was dissolved earlier with table salt but looks like it will survive with borax. I went around and around with this one before I thought I understood which terminal is connected to which for the device to operate properly. I think that the positive charge of the H+ group is attracted to the negative battery terminal. Wikipedia makes this statement as well. So, I believe the hydrogen is released to the nickel attached to this negative supply terminal. If you are confident that this is wrong please explain your understanding as I would be interested. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Sep 21, 2012 4:44 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites From:Chuck Sites Just to make clear, the nickel was always on the +side of the power supply, and is described in Wikipedia as the cathode. Hmm … I’m usually the mildlydyslexic one, but someone is confused: the + or positively charged electrode isthe “anode” in an electrolytic cell, which
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Heh. I guess that's the only possible interpretation. Dave talked about positive and negative terminals so I assumed he was using a DC supply. In which case the conventional definition makes sense. My first sentence was supposed to say: I got email on the *side *from a lurker ... Jeff On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 04:14 PM 9/21/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I got email on the from a lurker about this too. Agree. In an electrolytic cell, the cathode is the one connected to the negative terminal of the power supply, and this is the business end for H2. And with AC the ends will alternate?
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This was the point of trying a crude replication. It requires nothing exotic to do this, and it appears that yes- there is unusual heating with the US 5-cent coins as both anode and cathode, with borax electrolyte, under AC power (~10 watts) compared to using the US penny (copper); and it is time to move this into a lab to document. What led you to think it might not be Joule heating? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
This is all a joke, right?
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
At 06:14 PM 9/21/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I got email on the from a lurker about this too. Agree. In an electrolytic cell, the cathode is the one connected to the negative terminal of the power supply, and this is the business end for H2. Yes, the cathode is supplied with negative voltage. It supplies electrons to H+ ions in the water, de-ionizing them and they combine to form H2, which bubbles up -- or is rapidly absorbed by palladium, in those experiments. There actually was an attempted replication in 1989 where a physicist got it backwards. It's easy to get confuse -- except that obviously the fellow didn't understand the chemistry -- or didn't think about it. A physicist would know that a negative battery terminal will supply electrons. The confusion is somewhat based on the convention for current flow, that current flows from positive to negative. From the Wikipediat article, Anode An anode is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodeelectrode through which http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_currentelectric current flows into a polarized electrical device. The direction of electric current is, by convention, opposite to the direction of electron flow. In other words, the electrons flow from the anode into, for example, an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_circuitelectrical circuit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MnemonicMnemonic: ACID (Anode Current Into Device). Reading the Wikipedia articles on Cathode and Anode, I feel really, really stupid. It all seems wrong. My own confusion is probably based on that current flow thing. I think about electrons, and I think of electrons moving in a certain direction as current flow. But that's backwards from the convention. The convention is that current flows from positive to negative. Current *can* be a flow of positive charges, but that's not what flows through wires.
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: Eric Walker This was the point of trying a crude replication. It requires nothing exotic to do this, and it appears that yes- there is unusual heating with the US 5-cent coins as both anode and cathode, with borax electrolyte, under AC power (~10 watts) compared to using the US penny (copper); and it is time to move this into a lab to document. What led you to think it might not be Joule heating? Eric Celani? Ohmic heating is fully conservative, and if you put in 10 watts of electric power and get back 12 watts of heat, then either it is measurement error… or … not exactly Joule heating. But let’s be clear that this particular incarnation of “spillover asymmetry” is less certain than Celani’s work, which seems to pass all of the early tests of skeptical criticism. However, it all goes back to the incredible latent message in the Romanowski paper on the power of catalyst to split a rather strong molecular bond. How can a catalyst supply ~3eV of effective “catalytic power”, as the paper suggests, and yet this resource not be amenable to capture in some form, when you goal from the start is to capitalize on it? Of course, the catalysis of hydrogen isomerism has never been proved to violate CoE, and it is well-studied, but if Celani can do it (as well as Rossi, DGT, Thermacore, Mills, Ahern, Piantelli, Arata, etc,) then we have to ask, at some point: what is the simplest possible incarnation of the phenomenon of “turning the spillover effect into modest net gain”? Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ohmic heating is fully conservative, and if you put in 10 watts of electric power and get back 12 watts of heat, then either it is measurement error… or … not exactly Joule heating. Just to clarify -- I enjoyed the report. I also took particular pleasure in hearing about the nickels that others ended up dissolving; I didn't know that would happen. I was curious -- what were the details of the power measurements? Was the signal steady or did it fluctuate? Did you do any kind of calibration? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
The dissolving in salt water is a matter of course, actually. I used to work on fixed sonar equipment. It's astounding - the first time - what happens to dissimilar metals in salt water when there is a small current flow for one reason or another. But quickly you just learn from your elders: tell the customer not to violate the installation instructions. And tell them not to bother to sue. They'll lose. Jeff On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ohmic heating is fully conservative, and if you put in 10 watts of electric power and get back 12 watts of heat, then either it is measurement error… or … not exactly Joule heating. Just to clarify -- I enjoyed the report. I also took particular pleasure in hearing about the nickels that others ended up dissolving; I didn't know that would happen. I was curious -- what were the details of the power measurements? Was the signal steady or did it fluctuate? Did you do any kind of calibration? Eric
RE: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: Eric Walker Ohmic heating is fully conservative, and if you put in 10 watts of electric power and get back 12 watts of heat, then either it is measurement error… or … not exactly Joule heating. Just to clarify -- I enjoyed the report. I also took particular pleasure in hearing about the nickels that others ended up dissolving; I didn't know that would happen. I was curious -- what were the details of the power measurements? Was the signal steady or did it fluctuate? Did you do any kind of calibration? Eric No, no. This is completely ad lib, ex-tempo, spur of the moment, flash in the pan, down and dirty, first time for everything, etc. Were it not for the spontaneity of the internet grape-vine, it would never have gotten past a few crazies. Completely unreliable … at least as it stands on Friday. Next week, who knows? Actually – tomorrow could be an important milestone in the progress of the entire LENR field. Nick Reiter will strive to publish a white paper on Sat eve or maybe later – of his extraordinary early findings with cobalt ions in Zeolite. This could blow Celani out of the water in terms of robustness, and Fran Roarty may have a Casimir epiphany. I will post a reference as soon as it is known. Once again … not proved or even reliable … just over the threshold of minimal cyber-gossip standards….
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Nick Reiter will strive to publish a white paper on Sat eve or maybe later – of his extraordinary early findings with cobalt ions in Zeolite. This could blow Celani out of the water in terms of robustness, and Fran Roarty may have a Casimir epiphany. I will post a reference as soon as it is known. I have consulted my charts, and they are telling me he will see 56Fe, 60Ni and 63Cu appear together with alphas under light water. Eric
