JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >
> The problem with any analysis being touted as the basis for future devices > - is pinpointing the full and correct understanding of the operating > principle. Unfortunately, the operating principle of this device is not > well-described by Ed Storms. It would be a big mistake to apply Storms’ > insight on palladium electrolysis to such an extremely different device. > I do not know about Ed's theory, but what I think may be true is that the shape of the surface (morphology) plays a key role. The nano-cracks play a key role. With this device, the Pd expands with loading at a different rate than Ni does. Since they are bound together, this forces open nano-cracks. Which is where Ed thinks the reaction occurs. Even if he is wrong about the precise mechanism or the events in the cracks, this might be true. Similar nano-cracks might explain cold fusion in other implementations, and what look like very different systems. I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite different. Storms theory was derived from electrolysis experiments at (generally) low > power input and output and using (generally) lithium based electrolyte and > notably the most reliable level of thermal gain is in the range of watts > per gram of palladium. Some of those experiments produced 100 W or more with a high gain and 16 W/cm^2. See: https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618
