I've got an answer with claim of artifact... probably an old story. I imagine that to fool Ed you need more tha recombination ...
can you comment, and check I did not answer stupidly "Uncle Al <http://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211> said... @Alain Coetmeur The uncooperative Pons-Fleischmann exotherm requires Li-based electrolyte, high current density, thick Pd rods. Li is only slowly reactive in water. Pd dissolves Li. As with Hg dissolving Na, Pd dissolving Li is a hugely exothermic Lewis acid-base neutralization. Pd-Li alloys have *deep* melting point depressions vs. Pd 1552°C mp: 145°C mp for 12 atom-% Pd, 950°C mp for 75 atomic-% Pd, *J. Less-Common Met.* *55*(1), 67 (1977). (0) Catalyst in the condenser recombines electrolytic D_2 and O_2 to D_2O. It occasionally explodes when granules shift to expose fresh surface. This does not count. (1) Li metal electroplates onto the Pd cathode. Most reacts with heavy water. Some dissolves in the rod's surface, creating a lowering melting point Pd-Li alloy rind. (2) Very high current densities have the rind eventually liquefy vs. Li reaction with water and diffusion inward. Sudden reaction with bulk rod is the Pons-Fleischmann exotherm having no neutron, tritium (net 4.03 MeV), or He-3 (net 3.27 MeV) production. (3) About 24 nanograms of D + D fusion is one gram of TNT detonation. How big is the Pons-Fleischmann boom? 1 gram TNT detonated = 4184 J (one dietary Calorie) D + D = 3.65 MeV average, 5.848×10^(-13) joules 0.5 mole D + D, 2.0141 g total = 1.76×10^11 Joules 1 gram TNT detonated = 23.8 nanograms D + D fusion 12:57 PM, November 20, 2013" 2013/11/20 Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> > Interesting article on Science evolution... > It resonate with many things (out of LENR) I've noticed recently... > Mostly Science is dying of conformism... consensus... > It always have bee conformist, killing dissenters, but today this > conformism is getting industrialized, administered, funded, , globalized, > mediatized, with method and rationality. > > > http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2013/11/does-modern-science-discourage.html#1384868525427 > > the comments are interesting... > > the most funny is that answer: > "Phillip Helbig <http://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809> > said... > > *"But if it wouldn't work, what all these publications are about?"* > > One can study theology at university, but I don't see this as a proof of > God's existence. > > There is no confirmation of the Pons and Fleischmann result published in a > serious journal. > > Even if your conspiracy theory is true and the establishment boycotts cold > fusion, why not just set up a power company and sell the energy? Because it > doesn't work. > 8:42 AM, November 19, > 2013<http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/11/does-modern-science-discourage.html?showComment=1384868525427#c4613352858150026705> > " >
