I am sure P&F had hopes of seeing clear signs of fusion by packing as much
hydrogen into a sample of palladium as possible but after their initial success
it became apparent to them that the process was dicy, as in a collection of
samples, some worked and some did not. It should have been obvious to them
immediately that the alloying elements (impurities) and/or the crystal grains
and work hardening effects also payed a role in the results. If Storms is
correct then palladium may be completely unnecessary as is now obvious from the
success with nickel. If it is the micro structural defects that provide the
environment for the reaction to take place then any material that provides such
a place be it tungsten, iron, cobalt, or what have you will suffice provided
the hydrogen can make its way into the site. In the co-deposition of palladium
and deuterium, the built up structure probably created the micro structural
"defects" in abundance, hence it was not necessary to wait around while the
packing of palladium into a bulk sample initiated cracks and created the
necessary sites by crack propagation. (That is what hydrogen will do even to
palladium) I am assuming here that there is no fusion of nickel with hydrogen
but hydrogen to hydrogen, etc. Storms suggested that the reactions take place
on the surface of a palladium sample, which is where the strains are highest in
the case of a material with an internal pressure created by the loading of
deutrium would be highest and as a result would be the place where cracking
would be most developed and produce the most reaction sites. If nickel is
central to the reaction then it is not necessary to have large quanties of
nickel in the reactor just as in the case of no need for large qantities of
hydrogen. The nickel could be built into the surface of a spongy mass of
ceramic that simply provides a physical support to present the nickel itself in
large enough quantites. In which case the temps can be driven even higher.
