Having reread the Szpak paper at:
<http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf>
I can see that some assumptions I made during my first reading are the
basis of the confusion on both my part and others regarding what I wrote.
Understanding these assumptions requires a review of Fig. 1 of Szpak's
paper. Fig. 1 below is a rough ascii representation of Fig. 1 on page 4 of
Szpak's paper.
(+) (-) Electrolysis potential
I I
-----I------------------I-----
| I I |
| I I | Key:
| I I |
| I I | I - Electrolysis power wire
| I I | # - Platinum screen anode
| I I | g - Gold foil
c | I I | c s - Piezo substrate
c | I I | c p - Deposited Pd
c | I############# I | c -| - Clear plastic cell wall
c | I | c c - Copper foil HV electrodes
c | I | c
c | ppppppppppppppp I | c
c | ggggggggggggggggggggI | c
c | gssssssssssssssssssgI | c
c | ggg gggI | c
c | | c
c ------------------------------ c
c c
c c
c c
c Foil 1 c Foil 2
Fig. 1 - Diagram of Szpak's Cell
Note that ascii figure viewing requires use of a fixed font, like Courier,
and Microsoft Outlook users may need to select "fixed" in the "textsize"
submenu of the "view" menu.
The first assumption I made was that Foil 1 on the left was probably
charged positively, and Foil 2 on the right charged negatively. Assuming
the opposite really doesn't change much regarding the conclusions, however.
This assumption is thus not critical, but is maybe useful for
understanding my points with clarity. If any description is present in the
article as to which polarity was used, I missed it.
The second assumption I made is that, given the first assumption, I would
expect the extreme fusion activity to be located toward the left side of
the cathode. After rereading, I see that the heavy transmutations at
least, were apparently *not* to the left (positive foil) side of the
cathode as I assumed. The article states on page 12: "Quantitatively the
newly fused elements are found to be randomly distributed over the entire
electrode surface area indicating highly localized reaction sites." It is
unfortunate that no cell photo is given so as to see the relative distances
involved, however.
Fig. 2 shows the conceptual basis for my remarks. It shows the Szpak's cell
with all but the copper foils and Pd layer removed. It also shows expected
electrostatic field intensity lines.
c c
c . . . c Key:
c . . . . c
c . . . c p - Pd layer
c . . . . c c - Foil
c . . . . ppppppppppppppp. . . .c . - Electrostatic field E
c . . . c
c . . . . . c
c . . . . c
c . . . c
c Foil 1 . c Foil 2
Fig. 2 - Diagram of foil plates and Pd only
Assuming Foil 1 is positive, the left side of the cathode surface p...p
should contain excess free electrons, while the right side should have a
deficit. The field lines enter the cathode assembly (which includes the
Au) at right angles to the surface, including a portion of the surface
exposed toward the anode screen. Similarly, the electrolysis current
should flow not only on the p...p surface shown in Szpak's idealized
Fig.1, but also somewhat around the ends of the cathode as well. It is the
areas at the left end of the cathode, specifically the interface layers
(which Szpak calls "interphase" layers, and the adjacent electrode surface,
which should experience the additive effects to which I alluded.
If the fusion effects are indeed uniform across the cathode, and the
cathode-anode separation is close, and the cathode is not mostly located to
the left (say, on the left end of a long lateral power supply wire) then my
comments were based entirely on false assumptions. This is probably the
case, but more data or descriptions or photographs would be useful to make
that determination for absolute sure.
In any event, the assumptions I made rightly or wrongly may well be useful
for the design of a follow-up experiment using a much larger external
field.
Sorry for the confusion!
Regards,
Horace Heffner
