The following is an extension of the "Excitronics and Szpak" thread. Fig. 3 below is a modified version of Fig. 1 in the Szpak paper at:
<http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf> Electrolysis potential Ground (+) (-) I I -----I------------------I----- | I I | (++) | I I | Key: c | # I | c | # I | I - Electrolysis power wire c | # I | # - Platinum screen anode c | # I | g - Gold foil c | # I | s - Piezo substrate c | I | p - Deposited Pd c | ggg I | -| - Clear plastic cell wall c | pgsgIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII | c - Copper foil HV electrode c | pgs | c | pgs | c | pgs | c | pgs | c | pgsg | c | ggg | c | | c | # | c | # | c | # | c | # | c | # | c | | c ------------------------------ c c c c Foil 1 Fig. 3 - Diagram of variation on 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 intent of this configuration is to maximize the imposed electrostatic field imposed perpendicular to the surface of the cathode. I suggested earlier that this might increase the electron density at the surface of the cathode. After seeing the configuration in Fig. 3 it is fairly clear that the vast amount of the potential drop should be across the plastic surface of the cell. Still, the E field is present at the interface, countered by ion redistribution and polarized molecule orientation. Within the cathode the electron distribution should be skewed toward the active surface. There may be unexpected results similar to what Szpak obtained. Regards, Horace Heffner
