Two things to consider: (1) reversing the current *does* "dissolve"
the Pd surface, and (2) previous work has shown that helium
production takes place near but below the surface (order of microns),
while tritium production tends to take place on or very close to the
surface (within a few atomic widths). This has been a classic problem
with CF, converting the process into a bulk effect instead of a
surface effect for all practical purposes.
On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2010/2/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@loma xdesi gn.com>:
...
A single
SRI experiment has been published that made strong efforts to
recover all
the helium, and it came up with, as I recall, about 25 MeV.
That experiment was discussed in the paper submitted by Hagelstein,
McKubre et al to the DOE in 2004:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf
They flushed helium out by simply desorbing and reabsorbing deuterium
several times, by varying the cell current, which they reversed in the
end to get all the D out.
It seems to me that if they actually managed to extract all the helium
this way, which their resulting Q value suggests (104±10 % of 23.8
MeV), the reaction can't possibly happen in the bulk. Not even
subsurface. It has to happen exactly on the surface, with some (about
half) of the produced helium nuclei going slightly subsurface. If the
reaction itself was subsurface, surely about half of the produced
helium couldn't be recovered without more radical means such as the
one you suggested below.
...
2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and
unavoidable
leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as possible.
What occurs
to me is to dissolve the cathode.
This seems a good idea.
I forget the best acid to use, but I do
know that palladium can be dissolved.
As I recall, Aqua Regia is the best for Pd.
Michel
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
