On Aug 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Whether we call it "back" or "front" is irrelevant I agree, but
unless I missed it, your quotes below do not mention what I suggest
i.e. **deloading at a surface used simultaneously as a cathode for
electrolysis (while electrolytically loading at the opposite
surface)**. If they do, kindly quote specifically the relevant
excerpt, I tend to get lost in your myriads of proposals.
My goodness, we are splitting hairs here.
Or maybe you thought my "while electrolyzing" referred to the
loading surface, in which case yes indeed you had suggested
electrolytic loading at a surface to do things (other than
electrolysis)
Not true. Two sided electrolysis is also suggested. In fact, the
entire scenario was initially based on my experience doing HV
electrolysis.
at the opposite surface. Is this what you thought?
Hopefully it was clear that the following text, the "Back side de-
loading issues" thread, is referring to doing electrolysis on both
sides of an electrode, using independent electrolysis cells separated
by a single electrode, loading on one side (the front side) and de-
loading on the other side (the back side). It should also be clear
that this is simultaneous electrolysis, not electrolysis done on one
side and then then other at some other time. The only remaining
question that I can see as a possible issue then is whether it is
suggested that the cathode be driven as a cathode from both sides at
the same time. This seems to me to be a fairly obvious thing
considering I wrote:
An alternative may be, on the back side, to use pulsed AC on top of
a DC trickle current used to sustain the anodized layer.
Very high frequency high voltage AC intervals with low duty cycles,
on the back side, would cause tunneling directions across the
backside of the barrier to switch directions, alternating many
times per volume diffused, and thereby increasing fusion prospects
per diffused atom. It also increases the probability of OH- de-
ionization, loosing free electrons to attach to the backside
diffusion barrier.
Clearly, due to the oscillating tunneling directions, there are
phases of every cycle where the electrode is driven as an
electrolysis cathode from both sides simultaneously. This strikes
me as much superior to driving the back side as a cathode with only
DC, and in any case using pure back side DC is an obvious variety of
back side de-loading, and one not having any special utility over the
suggested method.
Here is the "Back side de-loading issues" thread again:
On Aug 9, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
The backside de-loading scheme seems to have good rationale within
the deflation fusion model. The problem is to achieve it in a
practical way.
The key is establishing a back-side diffusion barrier, and using
the right cross-barrier potential in order to match the de-loading
and loading rates so as to sustain high hydrogen fugacity. It is
also an objective to provide a high electron charge density
immediately opposite the de-loading barrier. One means of
increasing charge density is to increase field strength by using a
high dielectric strength material opposite the barrier.
Now for a surprise. One way to achieve many of these objectives is
to make the back side an anode immersed in a water. The water acts
as the dielectric. The field strength across the two layer water
interphase can be well over 10^6 V/m.
The anodic diffusion barrier can be deposited and even maintained/
healed by anodization. The target for hydrogen tunneling then is
OH- molecules in the interphase, and any free electrons that might
be ionized off them and attached to the anodized barrier.
One problem with this approach is keeping the electrons from
tunneling across the backside barrier to the hydrogen instead of
the hydrogen tunneling through the back side barrier to the
electrons. The down side to electron tunneling through the
backside barrier is (1) deflation fusion is accomplished best by
simultaneous deuteron tunneling to an electron and (2) fusion on
the front side of the barrier will cause disruption of the lattice,
destruction of the barrier, and possible helium blockage.
Preventing the problems should be possible by energetically denying
them by driving front side electrolysis at a much higher voltage
once loading is complete.
Operating with a superimposed pulse, on both the front and back
side potentials, to trigger hydrogen barrier tunneling, may be
efficient because it gives the lattice time to diffuse replacement
hydrogen, backside gas a chance to dissipate, and the interphase to
recover.
On Aug 9, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
An alternative may be, on the back side, to use pulsed AC on top of
a DC trickle current used to sustain the anodized layer.
Very high frequency high voltage AC intervals with low duty cycles,
on the back side, would cause tunneling directions across the
backside of the barrier to switch directions, alternating many
times per volume diffused, and thereby increasing fusion prospects
per diffused atom. It also increases the probability of OH- de-
ionization, loosing free electrons to attach to the backside
diffusion barrier.
