RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

Hi Ed,

That's a tough one,  I tried to duplicate their results just after they
announced them, and read all I could find about their experiments. It
probably came from usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion.  If I remember the
source, I'll let you know.

Hoyt


-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 4:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?


Hoyt, where did you get this information? In all my reading, I have
never seen where F-P added CS2 to their cell.

Ed

Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:

> Remember Pons&Fleishmann deliberately poisoned their electrolyte with
carbon
> disulfide ( which unfortunately disables any platinum recombiner you may
be
> using if allowed to splash up there (from experience) ).
>
> Hoyt Stearns
> Scottsdale, Arizona US
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:11 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
>
>
>
> Michael Foster wrote:
>
>>Since I haven't read all the papers on LENR-CANR, I'm not sure if this
>
> subject has already been covered. The recent Arata demonstration confirms
> what I've thought for some time concerning the CF phenomenon. That is, the
> electrolytic version of CF has been difficult to reproduce because
> electrolysis is not the actual mechanism at work in producing fusion and
> heat. Maybe it is merely another but more difficult way of creating the
same
> conditions that Arata presents.
>
>>The well-known period of cathode loading in the CF electrolysis cells has
>
> been shown to require the formation of micro-fissures in the palladium
> before excess heat is produced. This makes a lot of sense because those
who
> are familiar with the history of catalysis know that platinum and
palladium
> are considered to be "poisoned" catalysts if they have been in contact
with
> water. In other words, no hydrogen adsorption would take place if the
> catalyst had been poisoned with water, among other substances.
>
>>So how could the deuterium adsorption take place in a palladium cathode
>
> under water? Short answer: It couldn't.
>
>
> Um ... Perhaps I've misunderstood this but I didn't think *adsorption*
> was all that relevant to CF.
>
> In CF the hydrogen/deuterium actually enters the Pd lattice.  In
> adsorption, OTOH, it sticks to the surface.  Quoting from Wikipedia,
>
> *
>
>>*Adsorption* is a process that occurs when a gas or liquid solute
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solute> accumulates on the surface of a
>>solid or a liquid (adsorbent), forming a film of molecules or atoms
>>(the adsorbate <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorbate>).
>
> *
>
> In catalysis, adsorption is very important, because the reactions
> actually take place on the surface of the catalyst.  But in CF they take
> place within the mass of the Pd and whether anything is sticking to the
> surface or not would seem somewhat irrelevant.
>
> The nuclei which fuse in CF are actually inside the lattice, as I
> understand it.  The H and O which react when Pt (or Pd) catalyzes a
> reaction, OTOH, are stuck to the surface.  Water on the surface poisons
> the latter but it's not clear it would have any effect on the former.
> Boosting surface area of the catalyst by using fine particles makes an
> enormous difference to catalysis, because there's that much more surface
> area present;  OTOH, though it speeds loading of D into the Pd, it's not
> a ticket to instant success in CF because it's not the surface area, per
> se, which matters.
>
>
>