At 11:22 AM 11/2/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
there are more non-nuclear possibilities, obviously, at higher
voltages.
There are non-nuclear possibilities at lower voltages too, and that
is in part my point. The SPAWAR spots are visible in infra-red.
It should be noted that the SPAWAR video is
showing the back side of the cathode, not the
side facing the anode. The video is showing the
heating of the foil, through the foil, in local
areas. I'm not at all sure of the size of those
heat areas, but the heat obviously dissipates
very rapidly, as one would expect. They didn't
look from the anode side because of the obvious obstructions.
I'll be looking at the cathode palladium deposit
edge-on, for the most part, so I would only
expect to see some of the flashes. If I'm lucky,
though, I might see flashes against the CR-39.
Hmmmm... what if I used a scintillator crystal?
Don't know if it would be stable in the
electrolyte. But it might be, and, up close and
very personal, it might flash....
The
electrospark spots are visible. Both anode spots and cathode spots
could be the result of, initiated by, cavitation. Both increase in
intensity as things heat up. Both have similar sounds. Both tend to
occur in the center of the cathode, where it is hottest. I expect
steam+hydrogen cavitation is involved. Cavitation can produce plasma
which is conductive. A high current density will feed the plasma
heat, and further provide a hot gas for the re-compression cycle.
It's also more dangerous! I doubt that my power supply will be
chugging out more than 20 volts at the maximum current for the
protocol and two cells running in series.
I would expect that to be more than enough to cause steam cavitation
if the electrolyte conductivity is high enough.
The current will be limited to, at the maximum
point in the protocol, 100 mA. The setup is
constant-current, the current is then stepped up
in stages. It starts out very low, 100 uA, upped
once a day to 200 and then 500 uA, where it
remains until the Pd plates out, "10-14 days,"
then current is increased each day to 1, 5, 10,
25, 50, 100 mA, and it sits at the highest
current for two days total, then it's shut down
and the cell dismantled and the CR-39 is etched.
I also intend to lay the cathode and anode
carefully on LR-115, to get a radioautograph.
When I wrote 20 volts, this would be for two
cells in series, I think. I have a current
regulated supply, but it isn't designed to be
accurately adjustable for the lower currents,
I'll use current regulators, which need some
head-room. If I have to, it's a dual supply and I
can run each cell from one side, for the higher
currents. I haven't been able to find cell
voltage data from Galileo cells, but that data
was collected, presumably. I find it frustrating
that experimenters tend to only report what they
think significant. We end up wasting a lot of
time because of this.... Hypertext was a great
invention. Earthtech actually does use it, they
have an overall report, then detailed reports on
each cell, but the detailed reports are missing ... detail.
SPAWAR states in:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf
"The random time/space distribution of hot spots as well as their
varying intensity with time, Figs. 4a4d, exclude the existence of
fixed location of the nuclearactivesites. The random distribution
and the varying intensity arises from the coupling of the various
processes occurring on both sides of the contact surface in response
to fluctuations."
"Both, the frequency and intensity are a strong function of
temperature. In particular, both increase with an increase in
temperature, exhibiting the so called positive feedback, cf Figs. 3
and 5. This is, perhaps, the most direct indication of the influence
of the chemical environment."
So ... heating the cell should amplify the
effects. Eventually, I'll chart those waters.
Or what would happen? Something to look for, I suppose. If it does
go into solution as a salt, it would re-deposit. Quantities would
be small.
In the case of SPAWAR, when they use the PdCl electrolyte, the Pd,
produced in such minor quantities, can go back into solution and then
immediately become re-codeposited.
Is that a fact? I'd expect that expelled Pd vapor
would immediately condense to form a
nanonparticle, which would be insoluble near the
cathode at least. Maybe. My kingdom for a tiny
knowledge of electrochemistry! I have thought of
putting an extended anode at the bottom of the
cell, a piece of foil that covers the whole
bottom, so that any palladium that drops would be
dissolved back into the solution and redeposited.
But the Galileo protocol claims that some PdOH
accumulates on the bottom. Would this redissolve
at the anode, or would it be lost until exposed
to different chemistry? (I intend to scavenge
palladium, after the cathode and the "droppings"
are documented as well as I can. If someone
offers me analytical services, I'd go there,
providing samples of the raw materials and then
what was left in the cell at the end. Later on, I
might even be able to pay for that -- and then
those services would be offered to my customers,
either through me or directly, depends.)
