At 2:54 PM 11/27/4, Keith Nagel wrote: [snip] > ...For about as many papers on the LENR site >point towards a surface effect rather than a bulk effect. >It's quite possible both exist; the truth is the current >data is sketchy and incomplete. [snip] >Horace writes: >>There is a huge body of literature that says otherwise. How do you account >>for a major difference in results using H/Pd controls vs D/Pd for example? >>How do you account for observed changes in crystaline structure indicating >>thermal hot spots *inside* the cathode? > >How do you account for the huge body of literature that says otherwise? >I have no real problem with both models, but I gather you may have >one with the interfacial model. Or am I just overreading your post?
My objection was to the concept that it is an "interface" effect, that overcoming the interface potentail drop obtains CF. (Actually, if the interface potential drop can be defeated then 2nd law violation might be achieved however, and handy free energy hydrogen evolution as well, and maybe this was the momentary tryptophan mindset. Using a sacrificial anode requires restoring the anode at no energy cost though.) We need to distinguish between interface, surface, and bulk effects for the conversation to make sense. I think of effects to several microns as a surface effect, or at least certainly to the depth the surface is changed by the electrolysis. Perhaps a fourth category is needed as well, i.e. "shallow surface". Alchemy-like LENR effects are certainly not limited to the actual surface, but rather extend to some depth. I do think Jones has a point that the full picture is not yet available. It was a bit brash of me to assume the interface is not a principle player, since it is involved in most surface effects and likely in immediate subsurface effects. My main point, however, was really that overcoming the *interface potential drop* is not the solution to CF, ie. to LENR. I do think creating an (extra) abundance of free electrons in the surface vicinity, by imposition of external E field, may be of use, as posted earlier. Another perspective on this is my own personal hope (or bias) that if electrolysis conditions can create a fruitful CF environment at a shallow surface of several microns then the conditions in that shallow environment might be manufactured in bulk. That hope is not justification for me to discount the possible role of the two atom thick interface in CF, however. Also, attempting to overcome the *interface potential drop* is an approach to be used if the excess heat is deemed to be independent of the LENR effects observed, and possibly an important part of approaches to hydrogen generation strategies. Regards, Horace Heffner
