Horace has it right, but I would like to add a few coins to it if I may? There are two sides to the issue of what goes on in a cell (two sides that I care about anyway) one is the side that says that every entering (e-) becomes involved in a electrochemical reaction in order to reach its exit point (ionic movement or simple Redox) and be reconverted back to its original (e-) form. The second side says there is a conventional Ohmic component within the cell and that under the correct conditions electrons will flow as if the medium were a simple resistance.
If indeed one believed both to be true, then the number of Coulombs 'IN' does not dictate gas production. When a person states that voltage has nothing to do with gas production I wonder how they rationalize the disconnection between P=V*I in calculating input, (V) of course has something to do with it. Does not (V) increase (I)? Of course, so the increased (I) is ignored in the gas calculation then? Granted if you keep (V) at the thermal neutral point and increase (I) that is great, but few have obtained this in a large volume cell. (T) or temperature can to an extent aid production (desired to come from 3.6kJ environmental) first then added either from cell internal or other means, this is clearly shown in the Faraday equation, yet as I have stated on vortex in the past as (T) goes up so does the vapor content. Where this is going is that I firmly believe that Faraday will be modified or expanded upon in the near future. There are indeed some duplicatable anomalies reactions that can take place in a common cell when both ionic and electronic or resistive processes are used and engineered to increase the effects in the proper ratio. These resistive effects are seen as -R and only happen in properly pulsed systems and properly designed electrode configurations. Negative resistance can be experienced at a third electrode by what I currently believe is some type of electron tunneling that I do not at this point fully understand. This tunneling current does NOT produce gas of any type at the third electrode, yet it results in some very interesting observation in production. -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 1:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? On Aug 25, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > If they claimed the rate of gas evolution was higher than the input > _power_ could account for that would also be interesting. But they > don't -- they claim it's higher than the Faradic rate, which is > based on the CURRENT ALONE. With voltage something like five times > higher than the minimum needed to make the reaction go it's no > violation of anything to get out more gas than the "Faradic" rate > -- it just requires that a different mechanism be at work, such as, > say, pyrolysis in tiny hot spots on the electrodes (just to pull > one possibility out of the air). Until the evolved gas volume is > too large to be accounted for by the input POWER (rather than the > input CURRENT), it's not exciting news. > > Note that the claim of cold fusion is very different: Power out is > larger than electrical power in. That's the big news; the > occasional violation of the Faradic gas evolution rate is rarely > mentioned as more than a footnote in most CF papers. Violation of the Faradaic gas evolution rate happens all the time in modern electrolysers, which work on the combined effects of electrolysis and heat. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
