Hi Horace. I have tried this in the past, using a nickle based electrolyte. I was hoping that the magnetic field would cause some obvious morphological changes, or that I would see some remanent magnetism/polarization in the deposited metal after electroplating on the cathode.
Sadly, the simple experiments I did showed no such effect. I may return to this in the future; for reasons wholy unrelated to the subject at hand. But if you have any suggestions for things to look for, I'd like to hear them. That said, I suppose with a strong enough field I could effect the pH at certain areas on the cathode. Not what I intend though.... K. -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 3:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New light on LENR Earlier I wrote with regard to the Letts-Cravens experiment: "Also of interest is the fact that the target itself may be sensitive to the polarization direction of the beam, irrespective of the direction of the magnetic field placed across it in a radial direction. There are thus three things that should be mutally rotated with respect to each other, the magnets, the polarization direction, and the target itself, the crystaline structure of which may have polarising characteristics which may or may not be affected by an imposed magnetic field. The magnetic field could possibly be irrelevant. Alternatively, its effect might be primarily on the structure of the loaded lattice and not directly on the LENR process itself. For maximum effect, the lattice and magnetic field may have to be at a specific angle in addition to the polarization having a specific angle to those things." I would like to further expand on the above by saying that the direction and strength of the magnetic field at the time of surface deposition may be important, especially in the case of codeposition. Codeposition, the laying down of metal on the cathode along with the adsorbtion of hydrogen, in a sense, happens in all electrolysis, whether by design or not. A layer of *some* kind of material is always deposited on the cathode as electrolysis prodceeds. No electrolytic cell or anode is perfectly clean. The longer the electrolysis runs, the more the cathodic surface is changed. This was well known early on. For example, there was much discussion regarding the effect of dendrite formation on the cathode surface. Also noted was the fact that heat events seemed to occur at seemingly random durations following full loading. It was thus well known that the degree of loading was not the only important variable. There was debate as to whether CF was a surface or volume event, or even a volume event triggered by surface interactions and geometry. The then (and even now?) popular use of platinum anodes may have further complicated and cloaked the importance, nature and effects of the cathode surface fabrication during electrolysis. It has been sometimes noted, however, that used or "pre-conditioned" cathodes seem to be effective more quickly than new cathodes. It is possibly ironic that electrochemists sometimes went to extremes (though not extreme for electrochemists) in preparing clean cathodes by cleaning with solvents, acids, and then further cleaning the electrodes by using them as anodes in clean electrolytic cells prior to use in experiments. The role of a magnetic field may be important in the construction (and maintenance throughout the period of electrolysis) of a specific polarized cathode lattice structure or surface structure. A powerful magnetic field may play a useful role in building the right lattice structures and yet not be significantly involved in the LENR transactions themselves. Simply experimenting with the nearly instantaneous mutual angles and orientations of laser beam polarization, cathode, and magnetic field is not enough. The effect of magnetic field through time, especially during cathode preparation, may be important. It is also unfortunately true that a magnetic field, through polarization of the cathode surface, could thereby be involved in causing erroneous calorimetry. For this reason the use of improved calorimetry, especially dual calorimetric methods, is clearly indicated. Regards, Horace Heffner
