I just want to inject a thought about the NAE regions. The current flowing within the device and the electrolyte will induce a magnetic field within the active metal. At the moment I am not aware of any attempt to control the direction of the lines of force that are present and wonder if this might be one of the secret ingredients controlling the reaction. It might help explain why the same wire behaved differently at various times since this variable in uncontrolled. There were experiments that indicated that an external field modified the plating and pitting.
Just a thought. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]>; vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Jul 19, 2012 9:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:defkalion considering to leave Greece (?) At 07:09 PM 7/19/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote: Well, Jed, you may be right. However, when I wrote that Pons and Fleischmann only had one out of six cells work -- I really don't recall where I got that idea, and it might be from later work, whatever -- I was immediately corrected with a claim from someone who was active in the field at the time that they *all* worked, until they ran out of the original material. I don't recall hearing that happened to F&P. But it did happen to several others. McKubre, I think. He later used a long wire in loading tests. As I recall he did not even cut it. I may be wrong about that. Anyway, he pre-treated the whole thing and then tested sections of it. He found they had very different characteristics! There is no better proof that we do not understand Pd in detail, and that More Research Is Needed. This also demonstrates that material is the key and materials are variable for unknown reasons. The whole field was nailed to the crucifix of "reliability." Once a orrelated effect was known (helium), reliability was almost rrelevant, all that was needed was to set up an experimental series ith some percentage of cells showing adequate excess heat. ifficult, still, but lots of researchers did it. And those that idn't, and that still also measured helium, still created more data or the showing of heat/helium correlation. In any case, it's known *reasonably well* the reasons for the ariability with palladium. It is obvious that palladium shifts in anostructure when loaded and deloaded, in addition to structural ariations from pre-experiment fabrication. The most clear evidence or material variability is SRI P13/P14, where the *same cathode* wice showed no heat, highly loaded with deuterium, then, the third ime, same conditions repeated, showed a clear excess heat response, ay above noise, standing out from the hydrogen control. Storms may be right about cracks being the NAE. It makes sense. When he cracks are too large, the material is too leaky, it won't reach he necessary loading. When they are too small, or the material is erfect, no reaction. The loading stresses the material and it racks, but that's not very well controlled, it's difficult to eproduce exactly. I've suggested plating palladium on a substrate that can be ylindrically deformed in a controlled way, to create rows of ontrolled cracks that might be open and closed by changing the eformation radius. If ideas were horses.... I *am* hot on the trail of a "tell," a sign (not known to be nuclear n itself) that might be useful to detect CF reactions in the FPHE ithout full-on calorimetry. We'll see. This field often leads down lind alleys. But this idea seems to have woken a few people up.
