----- Original Message ----
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 10:58:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
>
> At 02:30 PM 6/14/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
> > Since the Widom-Larsen theory explains the positive results,
> > can it also explain the negative results. A good theory should be able to
> > do
>both.
> >
>
> I don't see W-L theory explaining positive results, at all. If so, it's been
>very badly explained!
>
There are lots observations explained here:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml#slides
> Krivit completely failed to be the "investigative journalist," asking hard
>questions, with W-L theory.
> Yes, a good theory would explain both positive and negative results. Nothing
> is
>really close to that yet, though what I heard at MIT last weekend does give me
>some hope.
>
Among the many things W&L say their theory can explain is why D kills the
reaction in Ni-H systems and why H kills the reaction in D-Pd systems.
Kirvit does include some informal criticism of the W&L theory on his website,
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml
Harry
> Still, Peter Hagelstein was struggling with models for electrochemical
> loading.
>Apparently the standard models suck, to use a technical term. Peter has more
>or
>less figured out why, but it's very difficult to model, since it depends on
>quite a chaotic and very individual process, for each cathode, as it develops
>what he calls "internal leaks," that is, leaks into internal cavities and
>domain
>boundaries, that eventually communicate to the outside. Put another way, the
>palladium can develop a high surface area, with most of the surface being
>"internal" and not exposed to the electrolyte and thus to loading, only to
>deloading.
>
>
