Horace Heffner wrote:
> At 12:40 PM 11/16/4, Edmund Storms wrote: > >Horace Heffner wrote: > > > >> At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> >Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of "Excitronics", but > >> >your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two > >> >errors. They claimed the aluminum resulted from transmutation and they > >> >claimed that the deposited morphology resulted from an applied external > >> >electric field. I addressed the first earlier. In the second case, the > >> >applied field could have only had an indirect effect. The electrolyte > >> >is a good conductor. An external electric field can not penetrate a > >> >conductor. > >> > >> Though the above statement might be found in many text books, it seems to > >> me to be untrue on two counts. First, the charge balance inside the > >> conductor is changed by the imposed field E. If the field were not > >> actually present, and merely balanced by the internal changes in the > >> conductor, then this charge imbalance would not be maintained. This is one > >> arena where the "field superposition" concept seems to cloud what is really > >> happening inside the conductor. Second, the surface effects on the > >> conductor can be significant and increase with the width of the conductor > >> in the imposed field. That is to say that the field intensity in any > >> remaining conductor-free gaps is increased by the presence of the subject > >> conductor. Conduction band electron concentration is reduced on the > >> negative side and increased toward the positive side. It seems to me > >> logical that a change in electron concentration in the conductor could have > >> chemical and morpological surface effects. > > > >I detect a bit of confusion here. We need, for the sake of discussion, to > >separate the effects produced by changes in electron concentration within a > >electrolyte from changes in concentration outside of the electrolyte, i.e., > >on > >the container surface. > > *Nothing* in my above paragraph references the electrolyte. Now I'm confused. I thought we were discussing the Szpak paper. He used an electrolyte and applied an electric field to it. Any discussion of the proposed effect of this field must involve the electrolyte. A general discussion of a conductor is not relevant unless it can be applied to the electrolyte, which I though you were doing. > > > >Szpak has changed the concentration of electrons on > >the surface so as to impose a change in electric field on the electrons and > >ions within the electrolyte. As with all conductors, free electrons and ions > >will move in such a way as to neutralize any change in the local field. This > >being the case, the positive ions will tend to move toward the surface having > >the greater negative charge. As a result, the impact of this applied charge > >will be reduced so that ions within the electrolyte will no longer experience > >its presence. However, as the positive ions move, they carry liquid with > >them > >so that convection within the cell is altered. > > The above sentence appears to be nonsense. The *current* movement to > neutralize a sudden steady state field E, i.e. a large but one-time delta > E, be the current ion flow or otherwise, is negligible. There should be > *no* fluid flow change to accomodate a steady state field - unless of > course that steady state field significantly affects the reactions at the > interface layer. A fixed field has an effect because the ions are moving in the electrolyte, because of bubble action, and these ions are essentially a current that is caused to pass through a fixed field. This field changes the paths these ions take, hence changes the convection currents. At the same time, the paths tend to neutralize this field, as I said before. You are viewing this as a stationary system when it is actually a dynamic system. > > > >No change in electron > >concentration occurs within the electrolyte. > > I did not in any way imply there was a change in electron concentration in > the electrolyte - other than *at the interface*. In the interface itself > electron concentration can be increased by an increase in electrode > concentration due to the fact electrons can freely tunnel the interface > itslef. The surface free electron quantum wavefunction extends beyond the > interface itself. Where is the interface? In the experiment, we have a glass container containing a conductive liquid. The field is applied between two external plates. The cathode, where the effects are proposed to occur, are parallel to the field. I do not know where in this assembly an interface can occur. > > > > A person might observe a > >somewhat higher concentration of positive ions next to the negative charged > >wall, but this effect would be very local. > > Well the effect on dendrite formation *is* in fact very local, occuring at > the dendrite tip. Isn't this in part in agreement with Szpak's results? By local, I mean local to the liquid immediately adjacent to where the external electrode is located. This local region is far away from the growing tip, which I claim knows nothing about the applied field. On the other hand, the liquid currents that flow across this surface are changed and provide depositing ions to a different part of the growing tip. This has nothing to do with a local voltage. > > > > > >> > >> > >> >At the very least, the ions would follow the lines of > >> >electropotential in such a way as to neutralize the gradient. > >> > >> An electrolyte is part dielectric. It neutrolizes field gradients in part > >> by polar molecule rotation. In the electrolyte a strong electrostatic > >> field tends to orient the H3O+ ions in a polar manner. I would think a > >> fixed orientation for some of the H3O+ ions would reduce the electrolytes > >> ability to conduct by its primary method, that being H3O+ molecule rotation > >> followed by proton tunneling. THis then should increase the amount of > >> conduction by other ions and such an increase might affect dendrite > >> formation rates and morphology. It might also change convection currents, > >> especially in the vicinity of dendrite tips, which, as you say below, could > >> cause a change in morphology. > > > >I suggest the mechanism you suggest would only occur in a very pure > >electrolyte, not one that has, as in the Szpak case, a high concentration of > >Li+ ions. > > The above depends in part on the field gradient. In the vicinity of a > dendrite tip, the field gradient is very high and polarization will take a > larger role in field neutralization. This in effect presents a barrier to > Li+ ions, which are cocooned in layers of polarized water molecules. The deposit grows by deposition of Pd ions. When the convection currents change, these arrive preferentially from a different direction, hence change the direction of growth. > > > [snip] > >Because the nucleus can move freely as an ion within a liquid, an applied > >field will move the whole ion and not cause displacement in the manner you > >describe. The model is more like a pump that moves the liquid body. > > You are describing ion motion in the electrolyte. This has nothing > whatsoever to do with the action at the interface, the subject of my > comments. At the interface there is a barrier to the motion you suggest. > The field strength at the interface is over 10^6 v/m. This is enough to > cause significant nuclear dislocation, significant changes in the nucleus > wavefunction. Here I think we are talking about two different phenomenon. Szpak had two claims. Transmutation products were produced and the shape of the deposit was changed by applying an external voltage. They can not claim that the external voltage influenced the transmutation reaction, which are in doubt, because such transmutations are reported in the absence of an external applied voltage. > > > > > >I'm surprised that the Szpak work is getting so much attention. The claims > >for an applied voltage effect are not supported by the required controls and > >better transmutation claims are found in other work. > > Well, I do have to agree with that. At least in the sense of claims proven > sufficiently for scientific publication. There is an indication of > potential results, though, so throwing out everything for lack of iron > clad proof makes a free energy lunatic fringer like myself a bit > uncomfortable. 8^) I don't want iron clad proof. However, I think a few obvious checks should be applied in the same spirit that normal science requires obvious possibilities be eliminated before a new idea is accepted. Regards, Ed > > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner
