JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: This experiment is so similar to what has been done before over 30 years – > what is the one detail which makes it so much more robust? >
Mizuno has some ideas about that which I hope to translate and put in a new paper soon. Ed Storms thinks it is the Pd mechanically bound to the Ni. Is "mechanical" the word I am looking for? Not what he said . . . I mean forced together rather than, say, melted together. He thinks the Pd expands more with loading than the Ni, and that creates cracks in the Ni. As you know, he thinks microscopic cracks are where the reaction occurs. Most curiously – Mizuno indicates that LOADING of deuterium is no longer an > important parameter. > I find that astounding. I looked at the data and could hardly believe it. I spent a day or two recreating Mizuno's graphs and making other graphs to be sure that's what it showed. Mizuno, on the other hand, seems nonchalant. He has some material science explanations that I hope to translate soon. As I mentioned here, the gist of it is that high loading in the Ni inhibits adsorption in the Ni surface and the Ni-Pd interface. That's where he thinks the reaction occurs. Ed also thinks that's where it occurs. I still think high loading is essential with bulk Pd, but I guess it is a special case, not applicable to all materials. Ed pointed out something long ago that may be relevant. When bulk Pd is in heat after death, the D emerge. Loading falls. It seems likely the excess heat continues even when loading falls below the minimum level in McKubre's graph. In other words, the heat does not actually need high loading. Maybe what it needs is high loading to start up, but then high loading on the surface and near surface as D emerges and "crowds" the near surface. That's about my limit when it comes to theory! - Jed
