At 12:21 PM 11/29/4, Edmund Storms wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >> Codeposition electrolysis using a weak carbolic acid, i.e. phenol, an >> aromatic ring with attached OH, or oher organic compound, combined with >> Li2SO4 and heavy water to form the electrolyte, and a Pd anode, may form on >> the cathode surface a volume which supports a larger than typical nuclear >> active state (NAS) zone as Ed Storms calls it [See "The Nature of >> Energy-Active State in Pd-D", Published in Infinite Energy #5,6 (1996)]. >> Ed's research shows the NAS to be located to within a zone about a micron >> in depth beneath the cathode surface, and that the active (successful) Pd >> cathodes tend not to expand when loaded. > >The Pd expands when loaded. This can not be stopped. However, this expansion >does not produce cracking.
Yes, my mistake. The above should say "... and that the active (successful) Pd cathodes tend not to expand when loaded to a volume in excess of that expected using the "published lattice parameter." That excess volume you defined in your subject article as "excess volume", or "EV". Your article in Fig. 3 shows as "potentially active" those cathodes having about 2.4 percent EV or less. The implication is the same though, that bulding a strong non-cracking confinement matrix is key, and I am suggesting codeposition of carbon rings or fullerenes into the right alloy may achieve that goal. As you say in your article, some of the EV is due to cracking, so the lower the EV the less the cracking. I am simply restating at this length so as to let you know I actually read and understood the article. Another requirement, namely building strong defects, is also potentially met by inclusion of carbon rings or fullerenes. All speculation on my part, but reasoned speculation. Carbon does a good job of hardening steel, so it may do some miracles codeposited with the right alloy, i.e to make the right alloy. One way to adjust the relative contents of various metals in a codeposited matrix is to use multiple anodes and control the relative current in each during the deposition process. Provided the deposition environment is well cleaned, it would hopefully be possible to create alloy compositions with adequate control. One means to avoid non-uniform ion distribution on the cathode, due to differing anode positions and sizes, might be to use an "ion bridge", a narrow channel, between a pool holding the anodes and a pool holding the cathode. Sputtering might be used to speed things up, but it seems to me offhand that codepostion provides the opportunity for much more control of metal mix in the process, plus the ability to deposit hydrogen, lithium, and carbon aromatic rings all at the same time. [snip] >I suggest a distinction needs to be made between a bulk effect and an effect >based on a large amount of the NAE. Once the NAE is understood, it will be >made as a powder or deposited on a heat sink, which is simply exposed D2 to >become a source of heat. [snip] True, but I have to wonder about the prediction. I suppose if the Case cell truly works then the above is practically a proven fact. We haven't heard much about Case lately though, or Russ George who was continuing along the same lines. I think it would be conventient to have a throttled heat source - though I suppose the hydrogen could be removed to throttle down. X-ray stimulation strikes me as a handy throttle, though the energy overhead might be too large. As I noted in the "Chicea Carbon Creation Counter-Commentary" thread 11/26/04, the electron flux should be roughly 1x10^19 electrons/((cm^2)*s), which is about 1.6 A/cm^2, which, at 20 kV per electron is 32 kW/cm^2. Fortunately, much of that should come from secondary electrons. The main problem is achieving the right conditions throughout a bulk to sustain. Regards, Horace Heffner
