At 8:43 PM 2/28/5, Keith Nagel wrote: >Horace writes: >>Why not use a Pd (or maybe Ni) anode along with the antimony dissolved in >>HCL to do the codeposition? This *might* avoid the otherwise inevitable >>explosion and permit operation continuous enough to do calorimtry. > >I'd rather use Pd and Sb salts and a carbon electrode; it's hard >enough to control the relative composition without an anode adding >more of one kind of metal.
You don't think a carbon anode will contaminate the cathode with carbon? > >Besides, I just want to measure the voltage/current curve for >the Sb/HCl system and the mass change of the cathode; with that info >we can make an informed guess on the input energy. Doing >good calorimetry would take someone parting with some coin, >but I'll do the VI curves for the antimony rod. The energy input is not critical to know. It is the cathode deposit energy density which is above chemical. If you should run electrolysis all year to get a gram deposited that still is not necessarily meaningful. Maybe a large part of the electrolysis energy is lost as heat somehow. Without careful calorimetry you won't know exactly what energy went into the cathode. It is the energy output per deposited gram number that is suspect. If you should get a very small number of amp-hours/gram of deposit, then I suppose you have accomplished something useful, so that is your point. You have then proven what is already assumed - that a chemical amount of energy can do the deposition. My suggestion was not meant to assist in replication, but rather it was meant to be a suggestion of something that might produce useful results with what materials you have on hand. I was suggesting that a co-deposited deposited Pd electrode, doped with Sb, may be worth checking for ou behaviour. If you would prefer to avoid a Pd anode, then just a Pt anode and an electrolyte with Pd and Sb salts should work. Calorimetry on a doped electrode would hopefully be a lot easier than on an exploding electrode. As you imply, the thing that has to be done for replication is a very difficult thing - measuring the heat produced in the explosion. Some more speculation: Suppose an Sb cathode with the subject electrolyte is a hydrino catalyst during electrolysis. The hydrinos should move easily through the Sb lattice, and be easily adsorbed, once formed. A large concentration of hydrinos inside the Sb could be self catalysing and thus explosive. As easily as they are concentrated, they should leave by diffusion over time when electrolysis ceases. If this is true, then simply waiting a few days to trigger the explosion should result in a much diminished result. If hydrinos can diffuse through Sb they should flow like an almost unimpeded gas through Pd. An Sb layer deposited on an evacuated or gas filled tube of Pd should, when used as a cathode in the subject process, produce a flow of hydrinos into the inside of Pd tube. The deposited Sb layer should be capable of dumping its hydrinos very quickly and might not even become explosive. Such a device should produce lots of excess energy during electrolysis, hopefully without a large risk of explosion. The "problem" then is what to do with the manufactured hydrinos. An Sb layer (or even dopant) on a Pd barrier to a hydrino gathering system might be a hydrino factory that produces excess energy as a bonus. Regards, Horace Heffner
