Horace Heffner wrote:
> At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote: > >Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of "Excitronics", but > >your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two > >errors. They claimed the aluminum resulted from transmutation and they > >claimed that the deposited morphology resulted from an applied external > >electric field. I addressed the first earlier. In the second case, the > >applied field could have only had an indirect effect. The electrolyte > >is a good conductor. An external electric field can not penetrate a > >conductor. > > Though the above statement might be found in many text books, it seems to > me to be untrue on two counts. First, the charge balance inside the > conductor is changed by the imposed field E. If the field were not > actually present, and merely balanced by the internal changes in the > conductor, then this charge imbalance would not be maintained. This is one > arena where the "field superposition" concept seems to cloud what is really > happening inside the conductor. Second, the surface effects on the > conductor can be significant and increase with the width of the conductor > in the imposed field. That is to say that the field intensity in any > remaining conductor-free gaps is increased by the presence of the subject > conductor. Conduction band electron concentration is reduced on the > negative side and increased toward the positive side. It seems to me > logical that a change in electron concentration in the conductor could have > chemical and morpological surface effects. I detect a bit of confusion here. We need, for the sake of discussion, to separate the effects produced by changes in electron concentration within a electrolyte from changes in concentration outside of the electrolyte, i.e., on the container surface. Szpak has changed the concentration of electrons on the surface so as to impose a change in electric field on the electrons and ions within the electrolyte. As with all conductors, free electrons and ions will move in such a way as to neutralize any change in the local field. This being the case, the positive ions will tend to move toward the surface having the greater negative charge. As a result, the impact of this applied charge will be reduced so that ions within the electrolyte will no longer experience its presence. However, as the positive ions move, they carry liquid with them so that convection within the cell is altered. No change in electron concentration occurs within the electrolyte. A person might observe a somewhat higher concentration of positive ions next to the negative charged wall, but this effect would be very local. > > > >At the very least, the ions would follow the lines of > >electropotential in such a way as to neutralize the gradient. > > An electrolyte is part dielectric. It neutrolizes field gradients in part > by polar molecule rotation. In the electrolyte a strong electrostatic > field tends to orient the H3O+ ions in a polar manner. I would think a > fixed orientation for some of the H3O+ ions would reduce the electrolytes > ability to conduct by its primary method, that being H3O+ molecule rotation > followed by proton tunneling. THis then should increase the amount of > conduction by other ions and such an increase might affect dendrite > formation rates and morphology. It might also change convection currents, > especially in the vicinity of dendrite tips, which, as you say below, could > cause a change in morphology. I suggest the mechanism you suggest would only occur in a very pure electrolyte, not one that has, as in the Szpak case, a high concentration of Li+ ions. > > > There is another field effect in dielectrics. That is nucleus > displacement. The positive nucleus is displaced toward the negative > external field direction. In other words, the center of charge is > displaced in order to neutralize the imposed field. In some texts the > nature of this charge displacement is treated as if atomic electrons act > like they exist at their center of charge. The nucleus is "displaced from > this center of charge" by an imposed electrostatic field. From this > assumption one can calculate the nuclear displacement given a field E. > This is of course a great oversimplification. The nucleus has a much > greater degree of freedom than this model indicates. That is because the > nucleus is inside numerous spherical shells of electron quantum probability > densities which have no net effect on the nucleus. A charge inside a > spherical "Faraday cage" conductor experiences no net force upon that > charge. The hydrogen nucleii in atoms in the interface, with its > horrifically strong field intensities, especially in the presence of an > alternating field, can experience dynamics which allow the nucleii to > obtain closer distances than 0.5 the hydrogen atom radius. Yes, the > Schrodinger equations will show thinning of the electron sheilding and thus > increase repulsion and the resurrection of the Coulomb barrier. However, > protons in the H3O+ ion have more time for briefly imposed fields to > accelerate them and they can range a larger distance than would be thought > by a simple center of charge model. Ditto for electrode nucleii and > adsorbed hydrogen. If a cathode surface has an increased electron > concentration, due to an externally applied field E, and that field E has > principly the effect in the interface of increasing the orientation of > molecules by polarity, it seems to me important to theoretically evaluate > the resulting change in electron screening capacity at the interface. An > increased electron concentration should increase the electron screening > capacity. Nuclear fusion probability should increase with increased > electron concentration. Because the nucleus can move freely as an ion within a liquid, an applied field will move the whole ion and not cause displacement in the manner you describe. The model is more like a pump that moves the liquid body. > > > >This > >would cause a change in convection currents within the cell and this > >would cause fluid to pass across the deposited surface. This change in > >fluid flow is the cause of the change in morphology. Simple mechanical > >stirring would have produced the same effect. > > A "stirring" control is certainly called for. > > >In addition, the type of > >crystal growth depends on applied current and the ion concentration. > >Several different types of deposit are known and can be easily made by > >changing the "normal" conditions. I see nothing in this work that is > >anomalous or new. > > More work is needed, but there may be something there? Perhaps the work > should not be quickly and summarily dismissed. There is food for thought > here. One is prompted to think further about the possible effect or > implications of fast alternating fields applied via capacitive interface > (which avoids part of energy cost of the potential drop at the electrode > interface) or via laser stimulation. I'm surprised that the Szpak work is getting so much attention. The claims for an applied voltage effect are not supported by the required controls and better transmutation claims are found in other work. Regards, Ed > > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner
