At 12:33 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote:
Thank you, Abd! We have to wait anyway till we know Melvin's results.
However, based on my long experience in the field I think that the
cathodes belong to three
categories or castes - inactive, talented (10- 30% heat excess) and
geniuses (say 500& excess or more)
This would refer to Fleischmannn cell cathodes, apparently.
I have never met an example of converting an inactive cathode in a
talented one,
or a cathode in a genius by exploring the parameter space. Cathodes
are born not made, cannot be educated - their maximum performanves
are an issue of kismet, or of technological genetics.
I would be enchanted if you or other colleagues could contradict me
with real life examples.
This has lead me to the idea that actually cathodes are deadly
poisoned, poisoned in part and protected against poisoning by some
lucky and rare event.
It's a reasonably hypothesis, though the more common explanation is
that microstructure is the issue. Could be both.
My view is that Fleischmann cells are too persnickety to explore, and
since we know that the effect is a surface effect, approaches that
maximize surface area would seem to be appropriate. And it is
essential that the problem of variability be addressed. If there is
poisoning, it's essential to identify the poison. Or catalyst, the
flip side of that coin.
And that is done by "exploring the parameter space." The goal is to
find stable conditions that always show the effect, even if it is
small. Then modify one variable at a time, always comparing results
with controls. As an approach is found to be interesting, and it's
stable in results, it becomes the new control. Say you think carbon
dioxide is a poison. So, vary the CO2 concentration (or CO2 exposure
of the cathode, say during fabrication) and see if it has any effect
on results.
This is what I'm doing, in fact, working on a standard experiment
that is cheap and simple and easy to reproduce.
The approach is codeposition, which has a reputation for reliability
and immediate results. The cathode is fabricated as part of the
experimental process, so there is no dependence on very quirky and
cumbersome fabrication. If I have two codep cells next to each other,
and the physical design is the same ("identical" doesn't exist in an
absolute sense, but does in relative terms), and they are in series
for electrolysis, so the current history is the same, and the
chemicals are from the same batches, and in the same concentrations,
and the atmosphere in which they sit is the same, I'm expecting that
results will be more or less the same.
However, since neutron radiation is very much out of the norm, and I
can stick control radiation detectors in lots of places, including on
the cells other than the experimental location (close to the
cathode), I will actually be running a light water control. The only
difference: light water instead of heavy water. And then I can run
the same experiment over and over to see how constant and dependable
the results are. And others will be able to run exactly the same
experiment, cheaply, because I'm selling those same materials.
And when there is a body of results with that simple set, then all
kinds of interesting possibilities open up. I'm using 99.9% D20. What
if I add a percent of light water? If I get the same results (not
more than 1% less, which is negligible for my purposes), then I can
save money for my customers by switching to 99% D2O, or maybe 98%. I
can run a cell with deuterium-depleted water and see if there is any
difference. That experiment, though, would probably come much later,
because right now I'm not aiming for heat at all, just for NAE and
neutrons from the secondary reactions SPAWAR has reported.
I like neutrons, don't you? Even a few means "nuclear," as long as
they can clearly be distinguished from background.
Neutrons are sexy.
I'll also be watching, literally, for visual and acoustic phenomena,
using a microscope trained on the cathode and piezoelectric sensors
attached to the cell.
