----- Original Message -----
From: "Horace Heffner"
A field in water at the cathode is not different from a field in
water at the anode - except for the fact the anode field can be
orders of magnitude more intense, and the water structure better
> organized.
I think that it has to do with that first micron of interface -
only this time that interface would be in the liquid, not the
electrode metal. Perhaps a "colloid" is a better term than
"liquid" since the implication is quite different. A colloid would
have nanoparticles, most of which came off the anode originally -
each roughly spherical of perhaps 20-100 bound metal atoms, a
slight positive change, and acting as an "exciton".
And I am a bit surprised that you are in apparent disagreement -
as this mechanism would seem favor your idea for the
"electron-pair" which is leaving the cathode - to catalyze fusion
at that interface, as it is being attracted - would it not? ... or
does the pair never leave the electrode in the paired
configuration ?
At the cathode, in general, you would have some free protons
(deuterons) being attracted at the same time as positive metal
ions, or colloidal excitons - whereas at the anode it would be a
different story and only electrons and negative deuteron molecular
ions would be attracted. Or so it would seem. Since the local
fields at the micron geometry can be very intense in either
situation, this seems to favor the cathode.
This is just my guess. It would be good to get several expert
opinions on this.
If we can frame it as a very specific question, I will ask Brian
for his opinion. If Ed Storms is tuned-in, maybe he would like to
comment on Haglestein's viewpoint and his own.
Do you disagree with the above generalizations?
Jones
