It should be noted that in an electrolyte the current results from a chemical reaction at the anode and cathode (in this case the generation of hydrogen and oxygen) there are no free charge carriers in the solution itself. The cations and anions are bound together by electrostatic attraction and exist inside cloud quasi organized solvent molecules. Electrolyte ions do organize on the surface of electrodes to screen the electric field at low potentials (most of the voltage drop in an electrochemistry experiment happens within the first nanometer of the electrode surface). At the high fields quoted in the linked paper, I cannot imagine how the electrolyte could screen the applied field. It seems reasonable to me that an electric field could exist inside the cell, since electrolytes do not have free charges that can migrate to the surface of the dielectric. Electrolytes do not conduct electrons, they accept electrons and donate electrons. There are no charges flowing through the solution, just reactions at the electrode surface. Now I must get back to my electrodeposition experiment.
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:15:05 -0500 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; dunca...@missouri.edu; rmfor...@gmail.com > From: a...@lomaxdesign.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of > effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: > Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 > > At 11:47 PM 7/2/2012, Rich Murray wrote: > >SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of > >external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich > >Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 > > > >Coldfusionnow.org posted the following video today: 68 minutes April, 2012 > > > >Robert Duncan discusses experiments at Sidney Kimmel Institute for > >Nuclear Renaissance > > > >http://coldfusionnow.org/robert-duncan-discusses-experiments-at-sidney-kimmel-institute-for-nuclear-renaissance/ > > I've been unable to view this video, > unfortunately. I view most videos on my iPhone > and the presentation seems to be incompatible with my iPhone version.... > > > >Robert V. Duncan shows a slide from SPAWAR Navy lab (Pamela > >Mosier-Boss) that claims a 6 kv DC electric field from plates external > >to a wet conducting electrolyte has effects within the electrolyte -- > >but the reality in simple electrostatics is the electric field exists > >in the two plastic walls of the cell, between the liquid and the two > >external plates, i.e., a simple double capacitor setup, with no field > >in the conductor (electrolyte) that connects the two charged > >capacitors. > > Yes. I have the paper by Mosier-Boss, Szpak, > Gordon, and Forsley, that was published in the > 2008 ACS LENR Sourcebook, which refers to the > effect of electric and magnetic fields on "heat > generation and the production of nuclear ash," as > "explored by earlier researchers. In those > earlier reports, the experiment was gas phase, > and it seems most work was with magnetic fields, > plus the gas phase electric field work described > involved, presumably, a low voltage field, since > it was applied across the length of a Pd sheet. > > This paper refers to prior work examining the > "effect of external electric and magnetic fields" > on the Pd/D codeposition process." They mix up > electric and magnetic field results. Technically, > there is no error, at least not in the paper, > since they do not state a value for the electric > field, they refer only to an "external electric > field." However, Rich is correct. The external > electric field is almost certainly not "visible" > to the location of the alleged effect, the cell > cathode. This problem is not true for external > magnetic fields, which do penetrate the materials and are present. > > The error is in the interpretation of the effects. The primary paper is > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakStheeffecto.pdf > > The paper title is The effect of an external > electric field on surface morphology of > co-deposited Pd/D films > > This is a very useful piece of work. It shows > that an "effect" may appear, when subjective > judgments are involved, that does not exist, > i.e., that is based on something other than the > particular hand-waving involved. > > Can we be sure that there is no actual effect of > the electric field? Well, no. However, if there > is an effect, it is almost certainly not through > what is discussed in the article, which seems to > assume the presence of the electric field inside > the cell, which is assumed to be 2500– > 3000 V cm-1. > > From other reports, the total voltage is about 6000 V. > > The field strength (v/cm) seems to be a value > calculated from the total voltage divided by the > distance between the external plates used to set > up the field. However, the region of interest > (the cell contents) is filled with electrolyte. > Electrolytic current is flowing in the > electrolyte, and the resistance of the > electrolyte would be known to the experimenters, > from the current and voltage involved. The > current starts out at "1 mA per cm&2". > > Bottom line, the voltage across the cathode and > anode in the early phases of codeposition, by > their approach, is less than 2 volts. That is an > actual voltage between two points intermediate > between the locations of the high voltage plates. > > The analytical error is quite shocking, I > understand why Rich is exercised about it. For > the record, it would indeed be useful if an > author of the original paper were to retract the > conclusions and clarify the matter of absence of > the high voltage field inside the cell. As Rich > points out, that voltage is almost entirely > across the plastic cell walls. Because of > leakage, there might be some current in the > electrolyte, but I'd expect it to be in the > nanoamp range, swamped by the electrolytic current and voltages. > > However, Rich goes on to speculate in a different direction: > > >There may be small leakage currents through the plastic walls that > >short out the two capacitors, allowing unexpected currents to flow > >through the electrolyte, applying high voltages to many tiny > >locations, creating localized and evolving damage, thus generating > >sporatic unexpected local heat and depositing elements from all parts > >of the cell within these complex, scattered micro regions. > > Um, very highly unlikely. The plastic walls are > intact, or electrolyte would leak out. They have > high dielectric resistance. If this is acrylic, > it's about 1/16 inch thick. Current will be very, > very low. If there is leakage current, the > current will create a voltage drop. It will not > create "sporadic local heat." Basically, that > field does nothing. If Rich wants to assert that > it does something, well, that kind of contradicts his thesis, eh? > > He should stick with what's clear. It was an > error in the first place to suspect any kind of > effect from an "external electric field." They > were apparently thinking about gas phase work, > and even that was misapplied. My guess is that > they did suspect an effect of a magnetic field > (and there is other evidence for that) and so > decided to test both electric and magnetic > fields. They just didn't accomplish it, because > it's impossible to create a high voltage electric > field in a conductive liquid, without having at > the same time high currents and other dramatic phenomena. > > High local fields may exist under some > conditions, it's been speculated that high field > strengths might exist at the tip of dendrites > that can form on the cathode. But that would be a > high voltage field over a very short distance, > the net voltage would be quite small. At the > dimensions involved, the conductive electrolyte > is no longer something that can be thought of as uniform.... > > And then, another speculation: > > >If micro and nano bubbles of H2 and O2 start forming and moving around > >in the cell, their recombination on the increasingly corroded, complex > >surfaces of the cathode can be shown to easily generate enough energy > >to melt tiny volumes on the surface -- exactly the problem with nozzle > >erosion in the engineering of H2-O2 liquid fuel rockets. > > Exactly the problem that doesn't happen in cold > fusion electrolytic cells, at anything like the > levels needed. I've seen this hypothesis proposed > by a particular pseudoskeptic. He uses it to > explain away even the back-side pits on CR-39. > Basically, he imagines this mini-explosion that > creates a shock wave that propagates through the > CR-39 and that causes material to be blown off on > the back side. Without similarly damaging the front side at the same location. > > What is being shown by Duncan, I think, are > familiar images where it appears that the > palladium surface melted, or more than melted. > There is a hole in the surface, with what appears > as molten ejecta. These have been reported by > many, and have nothing to do with the electric field error. > > There is a lot of unwarranted speculation on all > sides about the appearance of codeposition > cathodes. I find it difficult to come up with any > plausible explanation other than a very intense, > highly localized heat burst, for the *many* > reports of what certainly looks like what would > be left if a spot got very hot, hot enough to > vaporize some palladium and melt adjacent palladium. > > Without any specific analysis, Rich is here > buying the concept of bubbles of explosive > mixture D2/O2 (it's not H2 here) floating around > the cell. It's absolutely true that if such a > bubble contacted any palladium, it would > doubtless explode. However, those bubbles don't > exist. Oxygen bubbles and deuterium bubbles are > floating around the cell, circulating, but the > motion of these bubbles is such that they will > almost all rise. Very few would mix. Few would approach the cathode. > > But suppose one does. How large is this bubble? > The "craters" are on the order of 10 microns > across, I think. The bubble would not be buried > in the cathode material, it would come up to it > and contact it, and would be ignited through the > catalytic action of palladium. This is a tiny > amount of explosive mixture, immersed in > heat-conductive electrolyte, against a > heat-conductive material, the cathode. It would > generate a flash of light, but little force. A > bit of hot gas would exist for a moment *outside > the cathode*, at the surface, very rapidly cooled > by the heavy water it is immersed in (and the > product of the combusion is heavy water, this > would be like sparging steam). Most of the heat > would never be transferred to the cathode. > > Pseudoskeptics have been coming up with > preposterous explanations for cold fusion > observations for more than twenty years. They > have never actually demonstrated that these > explanations are real. In the few cases where an > experimental observation was involved, such as > Lewis' claim that CF results were due to > inadequate stirring, it's been conclusively shown > that this was an artifact of Lewis' own cell > design and did not apply to the methods used by Pons and Fleischmann. > > It would be relatively simple to test theories of > recombination. Simply create some bubbles and see > if the cratering effect can be observed. Nobody > has ever done this. It's far easier to sit in an > armchair and dream up "possible explanations," > and lots of these have been published, that are, > once one knows the actual conditions in CF cells, > they are just as preposterous as the "electric > field" proposal in the SPAWAR work. > > Look, these are all details. There are two basic facts, well-established: > > 1. There are plenty of reports of excess heat > that could not be artifact; there is a heat > effect, it is no longer possible to support a > claim that this is mere calorimetry error. One > die-hard skeptic, Shanahan, still clings to what > he calls "Calorimetric Constant Shift," ignoring > that the shift he talks about, while > theoretically possible, would not be systemic, > and would not apply to all forms of calorimetry > used. Even Shanahan, when nailed down, > acknowledges that something unknown is involved here. > > The first fact was known and confirmed within a > year of the original announcement. The history is > very well explained by Beaudette. Beaudette also > exposes an early error: the assumption that > anomalous heat must be caused, if real, by a > nuclear reaction, and not just any nuclear > reaction, but one of a specific set of known > reactions that would then have other expected > effects. Since those effects were not seen (such > as fatal levels of neutron radiation from the > observed anomalous heat), there *must* be an > error in the calorimetry. That the original claim > was *not* of "nuclear fusion," per se, but an > "unknown nuclear reaction" -- "nuclear" being > assumed from the levels of heat observed -- is ignored. > > 2. Whenever PdD anomalous heat has been observed > and helium has been measured, the two results have been found to be > correlated. > > The first measurements of helium were anecdotal > and no attempt was made to correlate them with > heat. Pons and Fleischmann, Beaudette reports, > allowed themselves to be lured into a public > challenge over whether or not helium would be > found in the cathodes. They believed the reaction > was in the bulk, so they believed that helium > would be trapped in the cathodes. As it probably > would! But they began to realize, apparently, > that the reaction was surface, and that therefore > if any helium were trapped, it would only be near > the surface. As the implications of this dawned > on them, they withdrew from the challenge, which > certainly did not help their image! > > So it was left to Miles to actually do the work > on this. Miles ran a number of Pons-Fleischmann > class cells, observing excess heat from some of > them, and sampled the cells for helium, sending > it off for analysis, blind. Miles continued with > this work for some time, ultimately, Storms > reports, he took 33 samples. 12 of these samples > came from cells that were not showing excess > heat. None of these cells showed anomalous > helium. 21 cells were showing anomalous heat, and > 18 of these showed anomalous helium. > > (A lot of work in cold fusion has mixed > exploration with controlled experiment. In this > case, two cathodes were Pd-cerium alloy, and > these showed some heat, but no helium. One cell > suffered a loss of power during the experiment, > which may have led to a heat artifact. But Miles > includes these cells in his analysis -- as was > proper. You don't select your data after seeing > it! The correlation is extremely strong even including those 3 cells.) > > Miles has been confirmed, though, I've often > written, there is a lot of work remaining to be > done. Storms estimates the results from twelve > research groups as indicating a heat/helium ratio > of 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, but I've seen no evidence > that this is a neutral evaluation, it's got to be > a bit seat-of-the-pants. Huizenga, though, > writing in the second edition of his book, called > Miles results amazing, that a heat/helium ratio > would even be within an order of magnitude of the > deuterium fusion value of 23.8 MeV. > > Again, skeptics like Shanahan attempt to explain > this away. Shanahan says that CCS could be making > the calorimetry incorrect, but neglects to > explain how calorimetry error would cause helium > error matching it quantitatively. He basically > says, "garbage in, garbage out," but correlation > is a powerful tool for finding causal connections > even in the presence of high noise. > > The closest thing I've seen to an explanation > with primitive legs is an idea that when a cell > is hotter, it might leak helium more. However, > this runs into two problems: some of this work > involves helium found at above ambient. Some of > the work, in fact, did not attempt to exclude > amibent helium at all, it was looking for > *elevated* helium. Leaky seals would not elevate > helium above ambient. The other problem is that > some of the work was run constant-temperature, > with flow calorimetry. There is no elevated > temperature associated with excess power in these > approaches. There is merely less heating of the > coolant, the reduction of heating is the "power generated in the cell." > > The second experimental fact -- and this is now > the published position in the peer-reviewed > literature, the skeptical position entirely > disappeared years ago -- shows that the heat is > nuclear in origin. It still does not tell us the mechanism. > > We don't know what the mechanism is. There are > "plausible theories," Storms wrote, in his 2010 > review in Naturwissenschaften, but none that > explain all aspects of the phenomenon. Storms has > himself come up with a theory, but it is missing > critical features and *appears to be contradictory to known physics.* > > I find it unlikely that the true mechanism will > actually "overturn" established physics. The > rejection in 1989-1990 was not based on > contradiction with known physics, but only with certain assumptions. > > Huizenga's book was titled, "Cold Fusion: > Scientific Fiasco of the Century." He didn't know the half of it! > > Beaudette goes over this in excruciating detail. > Beaudette is available free for download, or you > can buy it. If I were reduced to bying a single > book on this field, and were content with being a > bit behind on the latest developments and > insights, I'd buy Beaudette -- and I did. I like a real book in my hands.... > > The pseudoskeptics crow that there hasn't been > any change in fifteen years, attempting this to > make this into an argument that it's pathological > science. It's true that there hasn't been a > *major* change, if we exclude the unverifiable > claims from Rossi et al -- which will be > game-changing if confirmed -- but that is because > continued investigation of the effect without > adequate theoretical knowledge of how it works is extremely inefficient. > > It has come to the point where some of the easy > avenues have been exhausted. It's possible, to be > sure, that the Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect will > never be practical, the conditions might be > inherently too chaotic and difficult to sustain. > But we won't know until we know what is causing > this effect. And that is probably going to take > the best minds in quantum field theory, and a lot > of work. The physicists have mostly been uninterested for years. > > Scaredy cats! > > There is research needed that was recommended by > both DoE panels (1989 and 2004) that has never > been done. If "scientists" still need proof that > the effect is real, fine. Attempting to find the > artifact in all this calorimetry and helium > measurement stuff, through controlled experiment, > would be real science. But given all that has > come down, I think it a waste of time at this > point, and I see no inclination among cold fusion > researchers to attempt to do more than has been > done already, given that what was done already > has been quite adequate to establish the reality > of the phenomenon, for anyone who wants to know, > and it still wasn't enough to satisfy the skeptics. > > The research that needs to be done is research to > explore the parameter space, and to find other > correlated effects and conditions besides those > known. It'a amazing how much research could > easily have been done by tacking on a few > measurements to what was already done. However, > with funding having become very tight, and with > the constant search to find increased reliability > and output power, needed for practical > application, not for the science of it, these > things were not considered important. > > For example, is there a correlation between > tritium and excess heat? For years, I thought, > from what I'd read, no, there is not. Then I > started to look closer. Experiments that looked > for tritium were generally looking for proof of > nuclear origin. Lots of workers found tritium, > but did not necessarily measure heat at the same > time. Were tritium samples taken from cells in > series that showed excess heat for some cells? > Apparently, yes. Miles probably did this at China > Lake. But he simply reports that the tritium > levels were not "commensurate with the heat." > > This was "intellectual contamination" from the > d-d fusion hypothesis. That hypothesis predicts > so much heat with so much tritium. Since so > little tritium was found, it was simply dismissed > as irrelevant to the heat production. The actual > data was not reported. We don't know. > > Some theories of cold fusion predict that if > there is hydrogen contamination in the cell > (which there always is, to some degree), the same > process that is normally fusing deuterium to > helium -- producing commensurate heat -- will > also fuse hydrogen and deuterium and the > particular mechanism, it's asserted, would make > some tritium. (Actually, I'd think it would be > He-3, but ... I'll let theorists come up with > their own theories!) It's complicated, but ... we > don't know if there is a correlation between heat > and tritium, nor do we know the effect of H/D > concentration on tritium. Basic facts. Simple. Unknown. > > >SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of > >external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte > > Yes. I haven't seen it. Maybe I'll ask. "Pam, > your slip is showing." Or maybe not. It's not > necessarily polite, and we don't really need it. > We know that these electric field experiments were misguided. > > For all I know, the high electric field sitting > on those cells kept the lab cat away (or people > were more careful approaching the cells and so > there was less disturbance). Or whatever. It's > just that there was not a high electric field > strength inside the cells, nothing at all like > the value for v/cm reported in the original paper. >
