Thanks Jones. It's okay with me that I didn't find anything convincing. It was a rewarding challenge. I will resume if I discover something I think will work. And I think you are correct about the value of null results. Those are things that have been ruled out. I am happy to find null results so many times in one way. If I ever find anything convincing after ruling out alternative explanations, I will be able to trust it. I was also happy to develop many automated methods of doing the research.
I did also use coils with many turns of cuprothal, nichrome, and constantan (wrapped around a glass stirring rod). Towards the end of my work, I used a complex automated design in which I regulated the power going into both cells through programming and switched the power supplies supplying power to the control vs. the experimental cells on a fixed schedule. Power regulation is difficult with electrolysis because the resistance changes throughout the experiment. The programming adjusted for this every 5 seconds. I thank you for all your helpful suggestions--particularly the mixed metal oxide anodes. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Jack, > > > > Sorry you got nothing to show from electrolysis - but it is sometimes > helpful to report these negative results. Thanks for stepping forward with > them now. > > > > There is value in null results when properly analyzed, and it can be of > significant value when there is something positive to contrast them > against. In the case of Ni-H, your results could actually narrow the > possibilities and open up greater insight - when one considers Cravens > results in contrast to yours. This assumes of course that both results are > completely accurate for a particular parameter, and we look at the > implications of the two types of experiments together. This seems to be the > case here. > > > > For instance, if a modest magnetic field is required for gain (especially > unpowered gain)– and a field intensity which is above a cutoff level is > needed, such as Cravens provides, then electrolysis alone is not going to > get us there unless the electrode is in the form of a coil of many turns - > to increase the amp-turns and thereby the field intensity. > > > > Although there is a small field associated with the current flow of > electrolysis, it is generally too low to meet any reasonable threshold. In > contrast, samarium cobalt has substantial field, i.e. “maximum energy > product” (BHmax) up to 32 megagauss-oersted (MGOe) with no current required > - equivalent to nearly a Joule per mm^3. Note that Mizuno used thin nickel > wire and many turns. He may not have realized the reason that it worked – > but only that it did work. > > > > Secondly, a few of the many nickel alloys you tried are probably close to > the proper combination of properties for gain, but perhaps do not meet > another critical parameter – which is chemisorption. > > > > Chemisorption could be critical (almost certainly !) - and very small > differences (such as 1-2% variance in the alloy ratio) could determine > whether a particular nickel-copper alloy is active for chemisorption, or > not. It is a feature of physical spacing. Even when the alloy absorbs > protons instead of atoms, success could still depend on the alloy being > active in a magnetic field of the proper intensity, and geometry. Note that > pure Nickel is not chemisorbent at ambient but, Ni with 5% Pd is > chemisorbent. Even pure Pd is not chemisorbent without some dopant. > > > > A new parameter which is showing up is “superparamagnetism”. Without it, > there are no terabyte HDs – which is an interesting connection to another > field. Superparamagnetism may open many doors of understanding in LENR. > > > > In short, if gain from Ni-H were simple to do – someone would have hit on > the proper combination of parameters way back in the flurry of activity > which happened between 1989 and 1993. > > > > Sadly, one problem for finding this holy grail may have been the tendency > not to report negative results, which is exacerbated when one researcher is > suspicious (or jealous) of positive results from another researcher in a > similar experiment. In fact, prior to Cravens, most positive results were a > bit more suspicious, since there were so many ways to err – most of which > are eliminated in a side-by-side unpowered experiment. > > > > *From:* Jack Cole > > > > Hi Jones, > > > > I'm still around. :) I put my electrolysis experimentation on pause > after doing something like 200 experiments with nothing to convince me I > had found anything. I had some hope for Brillouin Energy, but after all > this time at SRI with no results reported, it gives me doubts about whether > Godes had what he thought. I decided not to pursue replicating his method > until something more is released from him. > > > > Anyway, I'm not very hopeful for nickel-based electrolysis being able to > produce LENR--at least nothing I have tried has convinced me. There is a > lot to convince me that false positives are easy to obtain when you are > looking for lower levels of excess heating. It needs to be the last > conclusion you come to after considering alternatives and designing > experiments to test the alternatives. Time after time, the results of my > follow up experiments supported the alternative explanation. I'm hoping the > Rossi report comes out positive as the probability of a false positive at > his previously-reported power levels would be nearly impossible to obtain. > > > > Just to summarize, I tried various materials (Nicrome, constantan, > nitinol, thoriated tungsten, cuprothal, all of the above plated with > nickel) and various types of triggering (AC, pulsed DC, alternating DC with > pulsed AC, high frequency/high current AC alternating with DC, external > heating, laser, permanent magnet, different electrolytes). I tried slow > loading over several days to a week at low current followed by active runs > and attempts to trigger. I tried prepping material in light acid followed > by cleaning with acetone. > > > > Best regards, > > Jack > > > > > > Jones Beene wrote: > > For the record - here is more background on LaNi5, which is looking > more-and-more like the magic bullet for Ni-H thermal effects when combined > with a magnetic field (this combination could be in order to reach a > superparamagnetic state of self-resonance). > > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100476a006 > > > >
