On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote:
In addition, the behavior of helium and tritium show that they are made > very near the surface and not in the bulk. These issues have been well > discussed. > To elaborate, the conclusion that Pd/D LENR is a surface effect rather than a bulk effect appears to go back to these observations: 1. In normal palladium, 4He is not mobile. If some process were to produce it in the bulk of an electrolytic cathode, the 4He would be there later and show up in an analysis. 2. There have been several high-profile Pd/D experiments that have proposed a correlation of 4He off-gas production on the order of the heat observed -- somewhere near 24 MeV per palladium atom, although the precise value is in dispute. 3. Assuming 4He is formed near the surface with some amount of energy, ~50 percent will lodge deeper into the cathode, and ~50 percent will move in the other direction. On the basis of analyses of different layers of a cathode, a rough limit can be placed on how deep into the cathode the 4He producing reaction occurred. 4. Pd/D cathodes that were observed to be active have been analyzed, and very little 4He was found in deeper layers. I think this was also the case when Pons and Fleischmann submitted their cathodes for analysis. Nate Hoffman has a very interesting insider account of this. I'm recalling all of this from memory -- please correct any points that are wrong or add in other observations that have led to the conclusion that Pd/D LENR is a surface effect. Note that these conclusions would not necessarily apply to Ni/H, possibly on multiple counts, although, on the other hand, it might also be the case that Ni/H LENR will be found to be a surface effect, assuming it is eventually established to everyone's satisfaction. Eric
