As with people, genius cathodes are rare- Martin and Stanley had one, Mizuno had the best, Energetics had cathode no 64, Piantelli had one in the early stage of development.. I have no complete list just now. Perhaps Jed is more systematic than me.
Air is polluted almost everywhere, I am not speaking only about CO2 but about gases with content of N and S. Do you know my old paper? I would not reject a line from it. www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/*Gluck*Punderstand.pdf If I understand you correctly, you are performing experimental work and your ideas are based on this. Like exploring parameter space. Can you be so kind to tell here or on my personal address, in complete confidentiality what are the peak results as excess heat and reproducibility you have obtained? Thank you in advance! peter On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 12:33 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> Thank you, Abd! We have to wait anyway till we know Melvin's results. >> >> However, based on my long experience in the field I think that the >> cathodes belong to three >> categories or castes - inactive, talented (10- 30% heat excess) and >> geniuses (say 500& excess or more) >> > > This would refer to Fleischmannn cell cathodes, apparently. > > > I have never met an example of converting an inactive cathode in a >> talented one, >> or a cathode in a genius by exploring the parameter space. Cathodes are >> born not made, cannot be educated - their maximum performanves are an issue >> of kismet, or of technological genetics. >> I would be enchanted if you or other colleagues could contradict me with >> real life examples. >> This has lead me to the idea that actually cathodes are deadly poisoned, >> poisoned in part and protected against poisoning by some lucky and rare >> event. >> > > It's a reasonably hypothesis, though the more common explanation is that > microstructure is the issue. Could be both. > > My view is that Fleischmann cells are too persnickety to explore, and since > we know that the effect is a surface effect, approaches that maximize > surface area would seem to be appropriate. And it is essential that the > problem of variability be addressed. If there is poisoning, it's essential > to identify the poison. Or catalyst, the flip side of that coin. > > And that is done by "exploring the parameter space." The goal is to find > stable conditions that always show the effect, even if it is small. Then > modify one variable at a time, always comparing results with controls. As an > approach is found to be interesting, and it's stable in results, it becomes > the new control. Say you think carbon dioxide is a poison. So, vary the CO2 > concentration (or CO2 exposure of the cathode, say during fabrication) and > see if it has any effect on results. > > This is what I'm doing, in fact, working on a standard experiment that is > cheap and simple and easy to reproduce. > > The approach is codeposition, which has a reputation for reliability and > immediate results. The cathode is fabricated as part of the experimental > process, so there is no dependence on very quirky and cumbersome > fabrication. If I have two codep cells next to each other, and the physical > design is the same ("identical" doesn't exist in an absolute sense, but does > in relative terms), and they are in series for electrolysis, so the current > history is the same, and the chemicals are from the same batches, and in the > same concentrations, and the atmosphere in which they sit is the same, I'm > expecting that results will be more or less the same. > > However, since neutron radiation is very much out of the norm, and I can > stick control radiation detectors in lots of places, including on the cells > other than the experimental location (close to the cathode), I will actually > be running a light water control. The only difference: light water instead > of heavy water. And then I can run the same experiment over and over to see > how constant and dependable the results are. And others will be able to run > exactly the same experiment, cheaply, because I'm selling those same > materials. > > And when there is a body of results with that simple set, then all kinds of > interesting possibilities open up. I'm using 99.9% D20. What if I add a > percent of light water? If I get the same results (not more than 1% less, > which is negligible for my purposes), then I can save money for my customers > by switching to 99% D2O, or maybe 98%. I can run a cell with > deuterium-depleted water and see if there is any difference. That > experiment, though, would probably come much later, because right now I'm > not aiming for heat at all, just for NAE and neutrons from the secondary > reactions SPAWAR has reported. > > I like neutrons, don't you? Even a few means "nuclear," as long as they can > clearly be distinguished from background. > > Neutrons are sexy. > > I'll also be watching, literally, for visual and acoustic phenomena, using > a microscope trained on the cathode and piezoelectric sensors attached to > the cell. >
