On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting
liquid
in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by
SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also hot spots from H and O
microbubbles: Rich Murray 2010.02.22
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.htm
Monday, February 22, 2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/42
_____________________________________________________
I hesitated to respond to this because we beat the electric field
subject to death here on vortex years ago and I don't have time for
idle discussion, and don't want to be involved in a
sci.physics.fusion style rancorous debate. I'll just state the
obvious once and hopefully leave it at that.
If you were correct regarding your assertion then there would be no
observable effect from the experiment with imposed field vs the
control. There *is* a significant effect on surface morphology, as
can be seen in Fig. 3 of the old SPAWAR (Szpak et al) article here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf
Any effect at all on surface morphology will likely affect LENR. The
important thing related to this discussion, however, is that the
above article negates your premise entirely. There *is* an effect
within the cell due to the imposed externally imposed HV field.
Experiment only trumps theory. Bockris' text on electrochemistry
states that ion motion in the electrolyte between the interface
layers is not primarily due to electric field, because most all the
potential drop occurs across the two molecule thick interface layers.
Therefore ion motion in the electrolyte proper is mostly due to
random walk and concentration gradients.
It is notable that even if ion redistribution fully negates a field
within the electrolyte, that negation occurs via an ion
redistribution, and thus an artificial concentration gradient is
obtained. A change in surface electron density and distribution in
the electrode is thereby obtained as well, and that is significant to
cold fusion. I had more to say regarding the Szpak cell in
particular in 2004:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf
and much more to say here later regarding surface electron distribution:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf
and its prospective effect on cold fusion nuclear reactions:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
Last year I suggested here another variation of the Szpack cell
design, the "edge-on grid" co-deposition method, which has a number
of benefits for research purposes:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EdgeOnGrid.pdf
and which preserves the original edge-on orientation of the cathode
surface with respect to the field.
As far as any assertion the SPAWAR CR-39 pits are due to chemical
etching or surface damage, if you read the many SPAWAR publications
you will see things have moved far beyond that issue, by use of
barriers between the CR-39 and electrolyte, and via various control
experiments.
Regarding bubbles and hot spots, theses were also discussed here
previously. Here are posts in a couple threads of possible related
interest:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg35917.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg35608.html
Note the thread links at the bottom of these pages.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
