At 7:29 AM 11/26/4, Frederick Sparber wrote: >I agree with the contention that the Carbon "plated" on the cathode >is from CO2 contamination either from the atmosphere and/or possibly from >from the electrolyte-electrode chemicals. De-ionized D2O or H2O will absorb >atmospheric CO2 in seconds.
Yes. It has just occurred to me that, despite the fact such a mundane explanation carbon formation may appear to be an argument against CF type alchemy, it may provide an important look into how CF may be controllably created, as will be discussed further below. > >CO2 released at the anode can mix with the (H2, D2, O2) gases in the vapor >space >and undergo synthesis gas reactions catalyzed by the electrode surfaces above >the electrolyte: > >1, D2 + CO2 (Pd or Ni catalyst) ----> D2O + CO > >2, D2 + CO (Pd or Ni catalyst) ----> D2 + CO ----> D2O + C > >Many other similar reaction pathways are possible. Yes, especially since CO2 and various compounds it forms in water, being polar like water, have an affinity for protons, so in solution, take on (average) positive charges from hydronium and migrate to the cathode, i.e. become cations, e.g.: CO2 + H3O+ <--> CO2H+ + H2O The above two-way reaction equilabrates strongly toward the left, but clearly any equilibration at all migrates the CO2 to the cathode due to the force on the proton. Some cations require energy from an anode to be formed in the presence of water, because water tends to strip the protons right out of them. Carbolic acid (phenol) can form when CO2 is dissolved in water, and it can be "hydroniumized" to make a cation, i.e. a carbonium ion. Phenol is just an aromatic ring (C6) with an OH attached. One has to wonder if the freed aromatic rings can form into fullernes at the cathode when the free proton is electronated and water formed, leaving the aromatic ring behind. In any event, it seems to me an environment that can create aromatic rings can similarly create Fullerenes. If fullerenes can be created at a cathode surface, then this seems to have two major implications: (1) electrolysis of (strong) carbolic acid or other aromatic compounds may provide a practical means of bulk fullerene production and (2) the fullerenes formed at cathodes, especially when codeposited with metals and deuterium, may have a significant effect in producing cold fusion. Fullerenes would of course create major crystal defects, and, as powerfully contained "packing sites" for adorbed deuterium, such defects may be the missing ingrediant for reproducible CF. In other words the fullerene carbon bonds provide strong containment for pockets of hydrogen, the ionically bonded metal lattice permeable to protons provides a means of packing the fullerenes. Pockets of compressed hydrogen at defects created by hydrogen implantation of metals, esp. aluminum, have been shown to be fusion sites when bombarded by either electron beams (Kamada et al), or deuteron beams (Kasagi et al). The strong containment may be significant at the time of fusion catalysis due to the need to give secondary electrons time to work. The Kasagi experiment created protons with anomalous energies of up to 17 MeV using a beam that was less than 150 KeV. The Kasagi experiment involved the bombardment of a deuterium loaded titanium rod target with deuterium ions at up to 150 KeV. One possible explanation for the above was that somehow the incident deuteron frequently, for unexplained reasons, would interact with two target deuterons: D + D + D -> p + n + alpha + 21.62 MEV One possible explanation for such a phenomenon is that in the lattice deuterons tend to form Bose condensates which, when struck by a deuteron, tend to react as a single entity. Kamada obtained high energy particles and excess heat evidence using electron bombardment of deuterated targets. The fact fusion can be triggered by electron beam bombardment I take to be an indication of or confirmation of electron catalysed fusion. The exciting thing is the requirement for the electron catalysis to happen at highly compressed pockets of deuterium. It seems to me the high energy electron beam used by Kamada may have been primarily needed in order to obtain the required penetration. It strikes me that the best way to obtain a volume CF effect, as opposed to a surface CF effect, is to bombard the deuterated target with xrays. The xrays can then, at depth, provide the needed catalytic electrons of the required energy. It would be of great interest to correlate fusion events with xray energy for deuterated targets of varying thickness. One of the interesting results obtained by Kamada: >Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 35 (1996) pp. 738-747 >Part 1, No. 2A, February 1996 > >Anomalous Heat Evolution of Deuteron-Implanted Al >upon Electron Bombardment > >Kohji KAMADA, Hiroshi KINOSHITA [1] and Heishitiro TAKAHASHI [1] >National Institute for Fusion Science, Nagoya 464-01, Japan >[1] Center of Advanced Research Energy Technology, Hokkaido University, > Sapporo 062, Japan > >(Received December 7, 1994; accepted for publication November 6, 1995) > > Anomalous heat evolution was observed for the first time in deuteron- >implanted Al foils upon 175 keV electron bombardment. Local regions with >linear dimension of more than 100 nm showed simultaneous transformation >from single-crystalline to polycrystalline structure within roughly one >minute during the electron bombardment, indicating a temperature rise to >above the melting point of Al from room temperature. The amount of energy >evolved was estimated to be typically 160 MeV for each transformed region. >The transformation was never observed in proton-implanted Al foils. Micro- >structures in the subsurface layer of the implanted Al, investigated by >elastic recoil detection (ERD) method and transmission electron microscopy >(TEM), were presented for numerical discussions of the experimental results. >Possible causes of the surface melting, such as the heating effect of the >electron beam, size effect of the melting point, difference in the implanted >depth profiles between hydrogen and deuterium, and possible chemical reac- >tions due to the bombardment in D2 collections, were investigated. We >consider that some kind of nuclear reaction occurring in the D2 collections >is the only explanation for the observed melting. The reaction was esti- >mated to continue for only a short time, presumably less than 10E-10 s, >and the energy gain, which is defined as the ratio between the amount of >energy evolved and the energy loss of the impinging electrons through the >Al specimen, amounts to more than 1E5. > >KEYWORDS: deuteron implantation, electron bombardment, melting Kamamda also had a similar paper in 1992 regarding energetic particle detection upon electron bombardment of a deuterated lattice. The 1992 (Kamada) results showed 1.3 MeV or greater 4He (about 80 percent) and 0.4 MeV or greater P (about 20 percent) tracks using Al loaded with *either* H or D. The electron beam energy used was 200 and 400 keV. H3+ or D3+ ions were implanted with an energy of 90 keV into Al films. The implantation was done at a fluence of 10^17 (H+ or D+)/cm^2 using a Cockcroft Walton type accelerator. The Al foil used was would pass 200 keV electrons. It was bombarded in a HITACHI HU-500 with a beam current of 300 to 400 nA with a beam size of roughly 4x10^-5 cm^2, or (4-6)x1016 e/cm^2/s flux electron beam. The area the beam passed through was roughly 2x10^-3 cm^2. Total bombarding time was 40 m. The Al target was a 5 mm dia. disk 1 mm thick, but chemically thinned. The particle detectors were 10 mm x 15 mm x 1 mm CR-39 polymer plastic detectors supplied by Tokuyama Soda Co. Ltd. Great care was taken to avoid radon gas exposure. Detectors were set horizontally on either side of the beam 20 mm above the target and two were set vertically one above the other 20 mm to the side of the target but starting at the elevation of the target and going upward (beam source upward from target). The detectors were etched with 6N KOH at 70 deg. C for 2 h. at a rate of 2.7 um/h. Energies and species were determined by comparison of traces by optical microscope with traces of known origin. Traces on the backsides of the detectors were found to be at background level. Background was determined by runing the experiment with Al films not loaded with H or D. Four succesive repititions of the experiment at the 200 keV level were run to confirm the reproducibiliy of the experiment. There was a roughly 100 count above background in each detector, or 1340 total estimated per run for the H-H reaction. A slightly higher rate was indicated for the D-D reaction. This is a rate of 5x10-15 events per electron, or 2x10^14 electrons per event. However, the fusion events per hydrogen pair in the target is 2.8x10^12 events/H-H pair. The events per collision based on the stimulation energy was calculated to be 10-12 to 10-26 times less than the observed events. The 1996 results (Kamada, Kinoshita, Takahashi) involved similar procedures but bombardment was at 175 keV using a TEM which simulataneously was used for taking images of the target. Transformed (melted) regions with linear dimensions of about 100 nm were observed that indicated heat evolvement of 160 MeV for each transformed region. The (energy evolved) / (beam energy) for each region is about 10^5. Implantation of H was done at 25 keV to a depth of about 100 nm. at a fluence of 5x10^17 H+/cm^2. Bubbles of "molecular coagulations" of H were formed at pressures of 7 GPa. At a depth of 60 nm H density was measured by ERD to be 2x10^22 atoms/cm^3. Immediately after implantation molecular density was 1x10^22 mol./cm^3, Molar volume was 60 cm^3/mol and pressure 54.5 MPa. The targets were 5 mm dia 0.1mm thick polished using a TENUPOLE chemical polishing machine to a thickness of 1 uM over an area of 1 mm and a small hole of 0.1 mm dia. in the central part. A HITACHI H-700 TEM was used. The beam was 50 nA on an area of about 1 um dia. giving flux of 4x10^19 e/(cm^2*s). The area is first examined with the beam not fully focused and the spots are not there. The beam is focused and the spots appear (photographed) within about 10 s. for D2, not at all with H2. The experiment was repeated over 30 times!. To reliably reproduce the result two conditions must be met: (1) The microstructure must be optimum, meaning there must be a minimum of tunnel structures connecting the implanted bubbles. (This is insured by limiting the fluence of the implanting beam to 5x10^17 H+/cm^2.) (2) The intensity of the electron beam must be roughly 1x10^19 electrons/(cm^2*s). Regards, Horace Heffner
