Anomalous Electric Field Produced in Frozen Laughing Gas

Here’s an interesting article that has been referenced by MarkI-ZeroPoint on Vortex-l — Many thanks.

Rather bizarrely, an anomalous electric field had been discovered by researchers from Aarhus University in Denmark — in all places — in frozen laughing gas (nitrous oxide). An article on the Sciencalert.com website explains the strange discovery.

The researchers cooled nitrous oxide to minus 223 degrees Celsius, and it formed a thin solid film. When they hovered the film over a strip of gold, something very unexpected occured:

It was supposed to be a routine experiment, but the team soon realised something was amiss. A potential of around 14.5 volts appeared spontaneously on the film, which in turn produced an enormous electrical field of more than 100 million volts per metre. Based on widely accepted notions in physics, there should have been no electric current whatsoever.

The researchers tried to replicate the effect with other gases, such as carbon monoxide, propane and toluene, and were able to see a similar effect, but only when many layers of the substance were exposed above the gold strip (over 100 layers in the case of toluene)

I don’t know if this is connected with LENR, this is one of those times when it appears that the Universe might be laughing at us about our inability to understand really what is going on all around us!

A full report of the findings can be found in the journal Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics at this link:

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/cp/c4cp03659j#!divAbstract

  • Ged

    Huh. Yep, I got nothin’. Maybe if this is confirmed, it could be due to some sort of electrostatics with the gold and the probe, acting like a giant capacitor at a quantum level (due to the extreme cold they are operating at), but that’s just me making utter handwavy supposition.

    I love discoveries that leave us scratching our heads, as they are the truest sense of that word.

  • Ged

    Huh. Yep, I got nothin’. Maybe if this is confirmed, it could be due to some sort of electrostatics with the gold and the probe, acting like a giant capacitor at a quantum level (due to the extreme cold they are operating at), but that’s just me making utter handwavy supposition.

    I love discoveries that leave us scratching our heads, as they are the truest sense of that word.

  • Mike Henderson

    In physics, it is normal for experimental observation to precede theoretical explanation. Remember that the Einstein’s early work on quantum mechanics explained the photovoltaic effect. Alas, this is generally not the case with atomic nuclei: without a satisfactory theoretical basis, anomalous heat is banished. Thankfully, stars were allowed to engage in fusion before theoreticians could explain how they do it.

    Merry Christmas to all! (And keep following that LENR star.)

  • nightcreature3

    I bet the researchers were still laughing uncontrollably by the time they finished writing the report!

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I did not read the complete paper, but at first glance I would guess that this effect is caused by the same sort of dipole alignment that is observed in electrets:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electret

    The difference seems to be that the effect occurs spontaneously – that’s why it is called “spontelectrics“.

  • BroKeeper

    I love the way you stated “this is one of those times when it appears that the Universe might be laughing at us about our inability to understand really what is going on all around us!” Ever since F&P crossed the facade boundary of known atomic structure through CF it opened a whole new world of particle / wave interactions not usually seen in natural occurrences. It’s as if someone said “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man,……..”. Just saying.

    Merry Christmas.

  • Brokeeper

    Frank, I love the way you stated “this is one of those times when it appears that the Universe might be laughing at us about our inability to understand really what is going on all around us!” Ever since F&P crossed the facade boundary of known atomic structure through CF it opened a whole new world of particle / wave interactions not usually seen in natural occurrences. It’s as if someone said “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man,……..”. Just saying.

    Merry Christmas.

  • Axil Axil

    This is an example of EMF amplification in plasmonics, a key in EMF amplification
    mechanism in the theory of E Cat design. At the interface of a metal and a
    dielectric, a layer of free electrons are trapped by an Evanescent wave. The electrons are confined between two perfect reflective mirrors.

    To understand how it all works read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave

    Nitrous Oxide (32° F) has a dielectric constant of 1.6. The interface layer
    between the metal and the dielectric gas traps electrons at the boundary of the gas/metal
    interface. The dipole vibration in the gold caused by the photon
    excitation at visible wave lengths produce the electron cloud at the
    dielectric interface.

    This effect is the same that occurs between nickel and hydrogen in the E-Cat.

    There is a more powerful effect in the E-Cat because the dipole motion of the nickel
    atoms are resonant with black body heat photons when the
    micro-particle size is between 2 and 5 microns.

    • Nixter

      Dr. Storms feels that this cannot occur in high temperature systems, Axil, is there evidence that is contrary to this opinion?

    • Fortyniner

      Presumably the effect would not occur if the experiment was conducted in the dark? That would seem to offer a rather simple verification of the above.

  • Axil Axil

    This is an example of EMF amplification in plasmonics, a key in EMF amplification
    mechanism in the theory of E Cat design. At the interface of a metal and a
    dielectric, a layer of free electrons are trapped by an Evanescent wave. The electrons are confined between two perfect reflective mirrors.

    To understand how it all works read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave

    Nitrous Oxide (32° F) has a dielectric constant of 1.6. The interface layer
    between the metal and the dielectric gas traps electrons at the boundary of the gas/metal
    interface. The dipole vibration in the gold caused by the photon
    excitation at visible wave lengths produce the electron cloud at the
    dielectric interface.

    This effect is the same that occurs between nickel and hydrogen in the E-Cat.

    There is a more powerful effect in the E-Cat because the dipole motion of the nickel
    atoms are resonant with black body heat photons when the
    micro-particle size is between 2 and 5 microns.

    • Nixter

      Dr. Storms feels that this cannot occur in high temperature systems, Axil, is there evidence that is contrary to this opinion?

    • @Axil Axil: “The dipole vibration in the gold caused by the photon
      excitation at visible wave lengths produce the electron cloud at the
      dielectric interface.”

      Presumably the effect would not occur if the experiment was conducted in the dark? That would seem to offer a rather simple verification of the above.

    • Sandy

      Is zero-point energy being trapped and concentrated between the nitrous oxide and the gold?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

      • Axil Axil

        Yes. Whenever the position of the electron is restricted,
        its energy goes up in proportion to that
        restriction. A rough surface will produce more localization of
        electrons than a smooth surface. Therefore, the electrons on a rough
        surface will have more energy than electrons on a smooth surface.
        This relationship is based on the uncertain principle.

        From the reference on zero-point-energy that you provided as follows:

        “Zero-point energy is fundamentally related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[6]

        Roughly speaking, the uncertainty principle states that complementary
        variables (such as a particle’s position and momentum, or a field’s
        value and derivative at a point in space) cannot simultaneously be
        defined precisely by any given quantum state. In particular, there
        cannot be a state in which the system sits motionless at the bottom
        of its potential well, for then its position and momentum would both
        be completely determined to arbitrarily great precision. Therefore,
        the lowest-energy state (the ground state) of the system must have a
        distribution in position and momentum that satisfies the uncertainty
        principle, which implies its energy must be greater than the minimum
        of the potential well.”

  • bachcole

    It’s way too early for April Fools day. This is a very interesting one that needs to be watched by all curious people.

  • bachcole

    It’s way too early for April Fools day. This is a very interesting one that needs to be watched by all curious people.

  • Chris I

    The article of the first link confuses field and current so I discontinued reading it. By what the second one says, I would reckon it as being, at least loosely, akin to the Meissner effect (of superconductivity).

  • Chris, Italy

    The article of the first link confuses field and current so I discontinued reading it. By what the second one says, I would reckon it as being, at least loosely, akin to the Meissner effect (of superconductivity).

  • Curbina

    As with all this kind of news, “you had me at anomalous”. Now, jokes aside, every time experimentall results are produced that are unexplainable the ensuing debate is really the most fun part.

  • Curbina

    As with all this kind of news, “you had me at anomalous”. Now, jokes aside, every time experimentall results are produced that are unexplainable the ensuing debate is really the most fun part.

  • Mark Iverson

    As the person who posted that article to Vortex-l (aka, The Collective), anomalies are what science is all about; not tacking another decimal place onto the mainstream’s pet theories…

    • Chris I

      Tell that to Fabiola Gianotti and the rest.

      Experimental science is all about testing “whether or not” and the researcher isn’t supposed to cheer for the one any more than the other. Sometimes they do though, even when the result they see as being handy is so despite it’s conflict with another “pet theory” such as the neutrino having a tiny mass (against Weyl algebra in the Dirac equation). Mind, though, this is cuz both astrophysicists and cosmologosts each have a problem to which they can’t see the possible alternative solutions. Otherwise, if aan even tinier neutrino mass were discovered purely perchance it would be a shocking eye opener, more work for theorists to do.

      In any case ir’s a problem to solve that keeps up work to be done. I attended a course by Bisello, then head of the Italian branch of the team using the SLAC which had previously rivalled DELPHI to spot the top quark. I clearly remember an after lesson chat about the future LHC; he actually said it would be more interesting if, in the end, there turned out to be no such thing as the Higgs boson because it would mean the Standard Model still needed plenty more work. Just like the Michelson-Morley negative result.

  • Mark Iverson

    As the person who posted that article to Vortex-l (aka, The Collective), anomalies are what science is all about; not tacking another decimal place onto the mainstream’s pet theories…

    • bachcole

      Unless of course the “experimenter” is keen about employment, and especially if the experimenters funding source is the person who invented the “pet theory”.

    • Chris, Italy

      Tell that to Fabiola Gianotti and the rest.

      Experimental science is all about testing “whether or not” and the researcher isn’t supposed to cheer for the one any more than the other. Sometimes they do though, even when the result they see as being handy is so despite it’s conflict with another “pet theory” such as the neutrino having a tiny mass (against Weyl algebra in the Dirac equation). Mind, though, this is cuz both astrophysicists and cosmologosts each have a problem to which they can’t see the possible alternative solutions. Otherwise, if aan even tinier neutrino mass were discovered purely perchance it would be a shocking eye opener, more work for theorists to do.

      In any case ir’s a problem to solve that keeps up work to be done. I attended a course by Bisello, then head of the Italian branch of the team using the SLAC which had previously rivalled DELPHI to spot the top quark. I clearly remember an after lesson chat about the future LHC; he actually said it would be more interesting if, in the end, there turned out to be no such thing as the Higgs boson because it would mean the Standard Model still needed plenty more work. Just like the Michelson-Morley negative result.

  • Axil Axil

    Yes. Whenever the location ofthe electron is restricted,
    its energy goes up in proportion to that
    restriction. A rough surface will produce more localization of
    electrons than a smooth surface. Therefore, the electrons on a rough
    surface will have more energy than electrons on a smooth surface.
    This relationship is based on the uncertain principle.

    From the reference on zero-point-energy that you provided as follows:

    “Zero-point energy is fundamentally related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[6]

    Roughly speaking, the uncertainty principle states that complementary
    variables (such as a particle’s position and momentum, or a field’s
    value and derivative at a point in space) cannot simultaneously be
    defined precisely by any given quantum state. In particular, there
    cannot be a state in which the system sits motionless at the bottom
    of its potential well, for then its position and momentum would both
    be completely determined to arbitrarily great precision. Therefore,
    the lowest-energy state (the ground state) of the system must have a
    distribution in position and momentum that satisfies the uncertainty
    principle, which implies its energy must be greater than the minimum
    of the potential well.”