At 02:35 AM 10/4/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/10/3, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>:
> One of the interesting SPAWAR
> results is IR imaging of the cathode, showing that the cathode
> temperature is substantially higher than that of the electrolyte.
I don't think this proves anything, I doubt IR imaging can distinguish
between temperature of the cathode and temperature of the ~1nm
interface layer where most of the voltage drop and thus most of the
power dissipation occurs in any electrolytic cell.
First of all, the idea of "proving" things is an obstacle. I'm much
more interested in finding correlations. I think most of us are
satisfied that there is an excess heat effect; those who don't can,
at this point, be mostly ignored, in terms of designing experiments.
I can give a theoretical argument against Michel's claim, and I will
below, but, in the end, is a hot electrode associated with overall
excess heat? Is it associated with radiation detection? With other
effects, such as light emission or acoustical phenomena?
Suppose there is RF energy being generated. That wouldn't prove
fusion, certainly. But what if this RF energy is only emitted when
the cell is showing NAE effects? Suppose it turns out that RF
generation is closely correlated with, say, radiation,
quantitatively? Or one of the other instantaneous measures is so
correlated? The same is true for other "non-nuclear" measures.
We then have a means of *immediately* determining NAE activity, we
won't have to wait to develop the plastic radiation detectors or even
go for peak heat generation.
Plus I do expect that the community of those using the "toy cells"
will communicate, and a shared body of knowledge will be built,
different experimenters will try different variables, perhaps some
others will confirm, and .... f*** the journals who won't publish.
They will, eventually. Perhaps they will publish a report by someone
else who replicates in a fancy lab with heavy-duty instrumentation
and credentials, and I don't care. I have nothing at all against
"fancy," and I'm glad that there are experts with access to it. We
would not know what we know without them.
BTW, this highly concentrated heat near the cathode surface may be one
of the reasons why LENRs occur on the surface rather than in the bulk.
It would be useful to measure the voltage drop through the
electrolyte, and that could easily be done by an amateur. For my
purposes, I'd like to know if the cell can be made smaller by
reducing the distance between the anode and cathode. What happens if
I put a piece of acrylic, with openings on the sides, down the middle
of the cell? The same size cell could have half the D2O in it. The
current pattern would change.
To Michel's point, the IR imaging was not of the side of the cathode
facing the anode, if I'm correct, it is of the back of the anode, and
the anode is, perhaps, a piece of palladium foil, thin. I'm guessing
that, if Michel is right. most of the voltage drop, and therefore
most of the Joule heating, is at the interface layer, so, sure, from
Joule heating, one might expect the cathode to be a little hotter.
But Joule heating wouldn't be enough to explain the observed level of
temperature elevation, I suspect. If Shanahan were to be right about
unexpected bubble D-O recombination at the cathode, it might explain
the small hot spots, seen from the back, but all I need to do is to
find correlation with radiation, and there goes Shanahan's theory! At
least there it goes as a full explanation. What if little mini
explosions from such recombination trigger a little fusion? Seems
unlikely, but, hey, we always have to keep in mind that we are
dealing with something that is "unlikely." So the explanation might
be "unlikely." I think it more likely that the explosions are what
happens when you suddenly have some vaporized palladium, perhaps just
under the surface.
(I'm suspecting, from several evidences and Takahashi's theory, that
the NAE actually isn't forming at the surface, but just under it,
within the lattice, it is forming where the lattice is full, every
cubic space occupied by deuterium, and then some shock, some
out-of-equilibrium condition, bumps up the deuterium concentration,
and that it's the molecular concentration that counts, not the
dissociated deuteron concentration. If you get two deuterium
*molecules* in one cubic position, for a femtosecond, bang! That's my
rough idea of what Takahashi is talking about. Deep in the lattice,
too little D2. At the surface, not enough confinement. This would
then explain the low energy of the alpha particles, they've already
passed through a layer of palladium, reducing their energy and, as
well, their quantity. But then the vaporized palladium pops through
the surface and releases most of the helium trapped from alpha
capture in the outward direction, so there is still about half the
helium released. (The rest is held deeper in the lattice or base
layer, from the half of the alphas that would have a vector inward to
the cathode.)
I just want to find out, and to help others see, what is *happening*.
In detail. And in ways that can be seen by amateurs, without big open
pockets, but some interest and time. Like me. I think that the
radiation detectors can be handled such that there is, indeed, proof
of nuclear reactions. Some of the Galileo experimenters reported
triple-tracks, I think. I'm expanding that search, by using external
detectors that are possibly more effective for neutrons, that won't
have the alpha particle noise. And I'm leaving in the internal CR-39
to detect the alphas and perhaps some back side neutron-generated
triple tracks.
It would also be interesting to see what happens if the palladium
quantity is increased or reduced, so that the palladium layer is
thinner. There should be an optimum thickness, balancing cost vs.
effect and effect stability. Does the SPAWAR group have data on this?
I really should write Ms. Mosier-Boss!
I will also test the usage of these other detectors, LR-115,
internally. If they can handle the electrolyte -- it's a cellulose
nitrate layer that is in question -- then CR-39 might be replaced
entirely, and it appears that LR-115 may be more tolerant of high
track density, where CR-39 produces "ground beef." Further, I'd think
that removal and replacement of the detectors inside the cell should
take place periodically in runs, so that the radiation produced in
each time segment can be tracked. Reducing the track count per
detector should improve resolution, as long as background levels
aren't approached too closely.
I expect to be ordering supplies this next week. I've announced that
LR-115 radiation detectors will be available for sale, very soon; I
intend to also make cell quantities of the reagents available in
pre-measured packets or containers, so experimenters won't need a
milligram scale. I'll be busy....
Anyone interested in following or supporting the kit project should
join the project mailing list at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coldfusionproject/.
Because it is my savings and my time being invested, I'm making my
own decisions about what I personally do; there is nothing to stop
anyone else from doing likewise, and groups of us may decide to
cooperate. Want to join my "company," and participate in it? Write
me! By organizing in this way, we avoid the struggles and confusion
that did, to some extent, plague the Galileo project, we avoid the
well-known difficulties of "decision by committee." We have an
overall, open community, with a mailing list for communication, and
then, if needed, smaller "caucuses" that work more closely together
voluntarily. The coldfusionproject mailing list may be used by anyone
interesting in communicating about or coordinating cooperative
activity in the creation of CF-related experimental kits, by default,
and I do know how to handle exceptions in a fair way.
(If you don't want the extra traffic, but do have an interest, please
join through the yahoogroups interface, using a yahoo account, and
then set your mailing list preferences to "Special Notices." This
will stop almost all list traffic, but allow you to otherwise
participate and be known as an interested person. Special Notices
will only be rarely sent. Or if that is too complicated or you don't
want to set up a yahoo account, please just email me and ask to be
considered an "extended member," I'll make sure you get Special Notices.)
