Scientists Generate Magnetic Field from Heat Source

Here’s an article from Scitechdaily.com that was just posted on the Vortex-l list that looks quite interesting. It reports how scientists have managed to predict and experimentally measure the production of a magnetic field by using a temperature difference across an electrical insulator. This is a phenomenon known as the Magnetic Seebeck effect which has only been proposed theoretically until now.

The article explains:

The Seebeck effect (thermoelectricity) – named after Thomas Johann Seebeck who first observed it in 1821 – is generated when electrons in an electric conductor move as a response to a temperature gradient. On average, the electrons on the hot side of the conductor have more kinetic energy and subsequently move at higher speeds than the electrons on the cold side. This causes them to diffuse from the hot to the cold side, generating an electric field that is directly proportional to the temperature gradient along the conductor.

Using an electrical insulator rather than a conductor, researchers led by Jean-Philippe Ansermet at EPFL have shown that a Magnetic Seebeck effect also exists. Because an insulator does not allow electrons to flow, a temperature gradient does not cause electrons to diffuse. Instead, it affects another property of electrons that forms the basis of magnetism and is referred to as ‘spin’.

There has been quite a lot of interest in a phenomenon reported by both Andrea Rossi and Defklalion GT where apparently an electric current or magnetic field has been measured in the E-Cat and Hyperion reactors. Perhaps there is some connection to this Magnetic Seebeck effect in LENR systems.

If this effect proves to be something that could be developed and refined by further research and engineering, and electricity can be generated in useful quantities and an efficient manner from any heat source (LENR included) it would be a significant breakthrough with many practical uses.

  • Clarityof Mind

    Your post is encouraging but with one huge assumption: that the measurements of dgt and rossi are indeed extant and if so then also correct.

    Because we know that an assumption can be the mother of all ****ups … lets not get our hopes up before hoisting happy sails to the winds of change.

    What does Mats Lewan have to say from his July 23rd test in Milan? Did his phone start acting all weird? Did they have any magnetic interference commensurate with Seebeck effects expectations? Have DGT or Rossi ever shown such measurements to anyone who can in fact corroborate?

    What does National Instruments have to say about this? Dr. Truchard openly credited LENR and Cellani back in NI Week 2012. Surely a year later their involvement would have brought something to thelimelight. Owners of NI stock would jump at such revelations as opposed to jump ship as is the case lately.

    Scientific advance is a totally different ball game following a completely different time frame to the business world where people want to make money, save money, and increase returns. And no Mr Xanthoulis of DGT, its not about the principle of Mrs Maria as you state in your interviews. It’s about money! Because if you were truly following this principle (and you were truly honest about your results), then Mr Hadjichristos and you would not be hiding pretending to be working not even would you be pushing hard for new markets and new partners! No, you would be on every tv network globally as the faces of the century hailed as the fathers of light, life and energy (even of peace, but let’s not get carried away!)

    It’s time we all leave our dreams, our aspirations and our inner weaknesses hoping for a miracle. Let’s face the facts head on. It’s too good to be true! First comes science then comes business. The gap in between could be years, if ever.

    • GreenWin

      Wow! MY at her most subtle. The giveaway was, “Because we know that an assumption can be the mother of all f**kups …” Most honest posters here know gratuitous language on this page is discouraged. I have requested this diatribe be deleted and “Clarity” expunged from cyberspace.

      • AB

        The anger towards Defkalion seems to be in line with Maryyugo, as well as the wording of the accusations.

      • I second GW’s call for deletion of this post, on the grounds of obvious trolling.

        Most trolls such as Hody use proxy servers to spread their misinformation, as their ‘home’ IPs could obviously be easily barred at server level (.htaccess). There is no reason for any genuine contributor to use a proxy and it is fairly easy to deny access to anyone doing so.

        Admin – worth considering?

        http://www.wikihow.com/Block-Proxy-Servers

        http://success.grownupgeek.com/index.php/2009/08/22/how-block-proxies/

        • GreenWin

          The grownupgeek site made me LOL!! Thanks Peter.

      • Bigwilliejohnson

        I agree GW. Is a poster is negative in any manner towards Rossi then they are a troll and must be expunged immediately to preserve the mood her.

        • GreenWin

          Willie, it has nothing to do with Rossi (read the diatribe) and everything to do with respecting the rules of this particular blog. But MY is prolly beneath such rules so, I’ll settle for the 21 up votes… 🙂

        • Bigwilliejohnson

          Well Sir,

          As you know I don’t condone vulgarities but I do wish we had more opposing viewpoints on this and other LENR blogs.

          Bw

          • Roger Bird

            My personal feeling is that people don’t have a right to any opinion until they have read http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3913.pdf I know that sounds harsh. I would accept someone who disagrees with me, but not if they have failed to look at the evidence.

          • an article alone is not enough, you need the critics too.
            that is peer-review.

            This one from pomp & ericsson is the only one I’m aware

            http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6364

            it looks nice from surface, but if you dig one inch it is a shameful article as explain Bo Hoistad

            http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

            http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/52396/20130708/fusione-fredda-gravi-critiche-test-indipendenti-intervista-bo-hoistad.htm

            not only the argument are wrong, based on errors, exaggerations, bad reading, but even the logical reasoning and the ethic is awful.

            that alone should raise an alert against Crackpot science. Pomp&Ericsson wrote like crackpot scientists.

            If you find a good critic of Elforsk testers paper, tell me.

            The only serious point is that they could not test the DC voltage to rule-out a fraud by Rossi.
            the problem is that this fraud could have been easily detected by one of the 7 testers, with a grandpa DC voltmeter. game theory explain that Rossi would not be stupid enough to allow test in that condition under that risk.

            more generally, Rossi have let too much freedom to Elforsk-hired physicist for him to be able to organize a fraud.

            You cannot do stage magic if the spectators can stay alone day-long with your gadgets.

            what is shocking is that people with a PhD cannot understand.
            not proof of stupidity but of pathological community delusion.

    • Buck

      COM, I was surprised by your starting point, followed by your rationale centered solely around raising doubt by your unanswered questions, and then driving towards the conclusion: “It’s time we all leave our dreams, our aspirations and our inner weaknesses hoping for a miracle. Let’s face the facts head on. It’s too good to be true!”

      Your words are polished . . . but to start off by suggesting DGT and Rossi possibly lied about their observations, that is just plain ‘ballsy’.

      However, that is nothing compared to declaring that the near 25 years of science which has irrefutably established the reality of the LENR effect and supported some LENR companies to the point of testing operational LENR energy sources as being delusional in nature and “too good to be true”.

      To me, you present the logic of a Troll testing new ways to sway the ignorant and closed minded.

    • blanco69

      Whoever you are. (I can’t tell if you’re MY or not) your post does raise an issue worthy of a reply. I agree that it is reasonable to expect the science of LENR to follow a different path to the one where a product makes it to market. All 3 main protagonists (Rossi, DGT & Brillouin) claim to have the science worked out. My view is that none of them do. If you did have the science worked out then you’d KNOW that LENR was 100% real AND there was a good chance that the other two players were on the right track as well. In that situation you’d be crazy not to publish your theory knowing that your name will be all over it giving you a vital edge in a three horse race.
      Roger will probably be on my case for being negative and faint hearted again but I can take it….because I know for sure that I’m not a troll.

      • Roger Bird

        Is Levi et. al 2013 true? Are human beings greedy and occasionally devoted to service to others? If you answer yes to both questions, then what is the problem?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        However, in the situation you describe, while knowing that the effect is real, one couldn’t be sure if the theory was correct.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        “crazy not to publish” I don’t know, there are many examples of first to publish, second in the market place. It might also be a three horse race, with one horse 15 lengths ahead.

  • LilyLover

    Magnitude of see beck effect is very small compared to thermocouples. Per Dr. Rossi, no existing laws are broken. The photovoltaics still stay the most efficient compared to see beck. Significant see beck will need too much of a higher temp than hot cat. Hence Carnot, if feasible, rankin will be most efficient way. I’m sure Rossi knows best. Or knows who know best.

    • Asterix

      Minor nit: it’s “Seebeck” effect, after Thomas Johann Seebeck (1770-1831) who first observed the effect.

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    I am not sure anyone read the abstracts of the Japanese CF summit of this weekend. Peter Hagelstein revisited the W-L theory in which he concludes that it is unlikely that electrons in a lattice can be given so much energy that a proton and electron fuse to a neutron. This is one of the weaknesses of the W-L theory and I am interested in Dr. Larson’s reply. If we still conclude that LENR is possible, it would mean that vast EM fields are required to allow this happening, if the W-L theory is true. I do not know if W-L have included the Seebeck effect, I guess not. But if they had, there would still be the question how you get the LENR process started.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I read the JCMNS-Vol12 (Dec 2013) link that you sent (http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol12.pdf). What I found the most interesting were the following. 1) Pamela Mosier-Boss et al. testimony of how mainstream journal editors systematically reject cold fusion papers, despite occasional positive referee reports (the editor refused to show it). 2) Olga Dmitriyeva et al. points out that in PdD experiments, vacuum bakeout should be used to remove protium so that H/D substitution exothermic reaction does not contribute to the heat. In this work, OD et al. (Boulder, Colorado) have come closer to taking CF seriously, in comparison to their older publications where they had insinuated (without quantitative analysis) that H/D substitution might explain the FP effect. 3) Jacquer Ruer gives a very nice quantitative analysis of energetics of micrometre sized crater formation in Pd-D experiments. By considering that some craters show evidence of melting despite a small object cooling rapidly by thermal conduction, he derives an upper bound for the (very short) duration of the energy release and a lower bound for the (very high) power density.

      Regarding (3), it looked to me that the J/kg ratio of the craters does not necessarily exceed a chemical process. Perhaps if the host metal melts locally, dissolved hydrogen is as gaseous atomic hydrogen which recombines and causes a rapid energy release. Perhaps little bit like water which is dissolved in viscous magma forms exploding bubbles and ejecta in a volcano. Or analogous to Fukushima: hydrogen explosion, but hydrogen burning replaced by hydrogen recombination.

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    I am not sure anyone read the abstracts of the Japanese CF summit of this weekend. Peter Hagelstein revisited the W-L theory in which he concludes that it is unlikely that electrons in a lattice can be given so much energy that a proton and electron fuse to a neutron. This is one of the weaknesses of the W-L theory and I am interested in Dr. Larson’s reply. If we still conclude that LENR is possible, it would mean that vast EM fields are required to allow this happening, if the W-L theory is true. I do not know if W-L have included the Seebeck effect, I guess not. But if they had, there would still be the question how you get the LENR process started.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I read the JCMNS-Vol12 (Dec 2013) link that you sent (http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol12.pdf). What I found the most interesting were the following. 1) Pamela Mosier-Boss et al. testimony of how mainstream journal editors systematically reject cold fusion papers, despite occasional positive referee reports (the editor refused to show it). 2) Olga Dmitriyeva et al. points out that in PdD experiments, vacuum bakeout should be used to remove protium so that H/D substitution exothermic reaction does not contribute to the heat. In this work, OD et al. (Boulder, Colorado) have come closer to taking CF seriously, in comparison to their older publications where they had insinuated (without quantitative analysis) that H/D substitution might explain the FP effect. 3) Jacquer Ruer gives a very nice quantitative analysis of energetics of micrometre sized crater formation in Pd-D experiments. By considering that some craters show evidence of melting despite a small object cooling rapidly by thermal conduction, he derives an upper bound for the (very short) duration of the energy release and a lower bound for the (very high) power density.

      Regarding (3), it looked to me that the J/kg ratio of the craters does not necessarily exceed a chemical process. Perhaps if the host metal melts locally, dissolved hydrogen is as gaseous atomic hydrogen which recombines and causes a rapid energy release. Perhaps little bit like water which is dissolved in viscous magma forms exploding bubbles and ejecta in a volcano. Or analogous to Fukushima: hydrogen explosion, but hydrogen burning replaced by hydrogen recombination.

  • mxm

    proton current

  • mxm

    proton current

  • Buck

    COM, I was thoroughly surprised at what you suggest as a starting point and then the rationale you propose centered solely around raising doubt which drives towards the conclusion: “It’s time we all leave our dreams, our aspirations and our inner weaknesses hoping for a miracle. Let’s face the facts head on. It’s too good to be true!”

    Your words are polished . . . but to start off questioning whether DGT and Rossi lied about their observations, that is just plain ‘ballsy’.

    However, that is nothing compared to declaring that the near 25 years of science which has irrefutably established the reality of the LENR effect and supported some LENR companies to the point of testing operational LENR energy sources as being delusional in nature and “too good to be true”.

    To me, you present the logic of a Troll testing new ways to sway the ignorant and close minded.

  • Christopher Calder

    I do not know how magnetic fields would fit in with Brillouin Energy Corporation’s “Controlled Electron Capture Reaction” theory of LENR.

    Here, again, is their computer animation of how they think it all works.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HT2Hr5jPIY

  • I do not know how magnetic fields would fit in with Brillouin Energy Corporation’s “Controlled Electron Capture Reaction” theory of LENR.

    Here, again, is their computer animation of how they think it all works.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HT2Hr5jPIY

  • fritz194

    I would rather call that Nernst-Effect (or reverse Nernst Effect)

  • fritz194

    I would rather call that Nernst-Effect (or reverse Nernst Effect)

  • blanco69

    Whoever you are. (I can’t tell if you’re MY or not) your post does raise an issue worthy of a reply. I agree that it is reasonable to expect the science of LENR to follow a different path to the one where a product makes it to market. All 3 main protagonists (Rossi, DGT & Brillouin) claim to have the science worked out. My view is that none of them do. If you did have the science worked out then you’d KNOW that LENR was 100% real AND there was a good chance that the other two players were on the right track as well. In that situation you’d be crazy not to publish your theory knowing that your name will be all over it giving you a vital edge in a three horse race.
    Roger will probably be on my case for being negative and faint hearted again but I can take it….because I know for sure that I’m not a troll.

    • bachcole

      Is Levi et. al 2013 true? Are human beings greedy and occasionally devoted to service to others? If you answer yes to both questions, then what is the problem?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      However, in the situation you describe, while knowing that the effect is real, one couldn’t be sure if the theory was correct.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      “crazy not to publish” I don’t know, there are many examples of first to publish, second in the market place. It might also be a three horse race, with one horse 15 lengths ahead.

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    I have studied the Finnish patent: see: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/espacenetDocument.pdf?flavour=trueFull&locale=en_EP&popup=true&response=05484&FT=D&date=20130530&CC=WO&NR=2013076378A2&KC=A2
    Th first question one should ask is: Does it work?
    It is quite an interesting document as it reveals many details of the LENR process. In the first place I would like to hear from Mr. Rossi if he knows this patent and how he thinks about it. Or was it generated by him or his associates?
    The interesting thing is that it also points to the subject mentioned in the article above as it may use pyroelectric! (or piezoelectric or other) polarization nano particles (page 9.20) to cause the required high field strength. Maybe that this is the way LENR can work in accordance with the W-L theory?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It’s a very complex patent, hard to know what to think. The patent is formulated under a hot fusion type theory. Maybe because they believe in such theory in this context, or maybe because in that way they obtain the patent faster and wider. The description has lots of variants and details. Maybe some of the details are there to confuse competitors. Patents tend to be inclusive: if something has a chance of being true and having commercial relevance, it’s the inventor’s interest to include it. Unlike scientific papers where things under doubt are left out.

      • Marc Ellenbroek

        Maybe a patent should only be accepted if independent reviewed evidence of its claims exists. I volunteer to be such a reviewer.

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    I have studied the Finnish patent: see: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/espacenetDocument.pdf?flavour=trueFull&locale=en_EP&popup=true&response=05484&FT=D&date=20130530&CC=WO&NR=2013076378A2&KC=A2
    Th first question one should ask is: Does it work?
    It is quite an interesting document as it reveals many details of the LENR process. In the first place I would like to hear from Mr. Rossi if he knows this patent and how he thinks about it. Or was it generated by him or his associates?
    The interesting thing is that it also points to the subject mentioned in the article above as it may use pyroelectric! (or piezoelectric or other) polarization nano particles (page 9.20) to cause the required high field strength. Maybe that this is the way LENR can work in accordance with the W-L theory?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It’s a very complex patent, hard to know what to think. The patent is formulated under a hot fusion type theory. Maybe because they believe in such theory in this context, or maybe because in that way they obtain the patent faster and wider. The description has lots of variants and details. Maybe some of the details are there to confuse competitors. Patents tend to be inclusive: if something has a chance of being true and having commercial relevance, it’s the inventor’s interest to include it. Unlike scientific papers where things under doubt are left out.

      • Marc Ellenbroek

        Maybe a patent should only be accepted if independent reviewed evidence of its claims exists. I volunteer to be such a reviewer.

  • gothenburgman

    Just one thing — is it an oscillating field, or static? Just turning heat into a static magnetic field has no mening. A permanent magnet does that without heat.