First of all- thank you! I also think that somewhere we have to get rid of palladium and replace it with something cheaper and more abundent, And is a provocative and/or nasty assertion that now we still do not understnd the science? Should we repeat the 2005 survey?
It seems that the Ni based Piantelli system works, both at the author and at Rossi and Co. It is not cold fusion but it generates heat. At a proper temperatures. That's fine. Re your question, my grandson will be 8 years old next month and his talent for scientific research is more than obvious. He will inherit the problems we could not solve yet. I wish you success with your strategy and research program. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 06:00 AM 3/26/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> He concludes: >> the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market >> of energy. >> > > This is indeed my seat-of-the-pants conclusion as to the palladium > approach, unless the reaction rate can be greatly increased. At current > prices I did a detailed calculation (a few scribbles on a napkin) that an > Arata-effect cold fusion hot water heater might be done for, oh, neglecting > development costs, $100,000. Someone might buy it for the novelty. The > catalyst would probably need reprocessing from time to time, and that might > cost as much as the value of the energy. As has been pointed out, we have a > crackerjack operating hot fusion reactor sitting at a nice safe distance, > the sun, and we can capture and harness the energy being emitted from it. > > But ... this analysis assumes palladium catalysis. It's not the only > possibility. Vyosotskii's work is intriguing. What if proteins can pull this > off? What if we could grow reactors instead of "manufacturing" them? They > might be extremely cheap. > > This brings me to the main point: we need to understand the science. The > experimental facts must be nailed down, we need solid, reproducible results, > and aiming for "practical power levels" has probably kept this field back, > overall. Electrolysis with palladium is interesting to me because it's the > most widely replicated, and because it's easily accessible with > codeposition. It takes only a tiny amount of palladium chloride; the > expensive part of the experiment is the heavy water. > > I'm not looking for cheap energy, I'm looking for science and cheap > replication of experiments, so that they become, even in a highly skeptical > environment, widely replicated. I'm trying to help build a foundation, and > to thus stimulate more work on theory and the testing of theory. > > Because of the possible fabulous wealth and glory, perhaps, too much work > was done too soon on scaling up, trying to find the magic formula for a > "reactor" for energy production. There is certainly a place for that. But to > get to practical power production, as was emphasized in the ACS press > conference, we need to understand the science. Probably we need to > understand it first, unless someone gets very, very lucky and happens across > some technique. It's more likely that someone comes up with an accurate > theory and predicts high energy yield with, say, nickel under such and such > conditions. In other words, that science leads, the part of the scientific > process that develops theory. And that's based on knowledge of the > experimental work, and the existence of a body of work that explores the > "parameter space," as they were saying. > > That's relatively boring, plodding work, compared to Solving the Energy > Problems of Mankind. > > Of course, it could end up doing just that. But, really, do we have, for > example, solid measures of how deuterium concentration affects excess heat? > Not just endpoints. What I've seen, sometimes, is H2 vs D2, presumably pure > or H2 at normal isotopic ratio. What happens in between? > > From my point of view, I'd like to try a silver wire, plated with gold, as > a cathode, for codeposition. Much cheaper. I'd expect it to be the same > results as gold. Would it be? It's one of the things I expect to try. (Note: > I'm looking for neutrons, not excess heat, at this point. Gold wouldn't be > better than palladium, particularly, as to expense, but there is a lot more > gold in the world.) > > So: how does the reaction rate vary with the thickness of the gold, all > other variables being equal? I could do my own electroplating of gold, to > create silver wires with various thicknesses. > > Various theories might suggest various simple variations. What happens if I > dope the electrolyte for codeposition with some beryllium chloride? Or > preplate a beryllium layer? Any effect? Countless experiments become > possible once there are standard cells, and as long as they produce results > well above background (two orders of magnitude is probably enough, even > lower could be useful), I don't need to scale up and if the results are > robust enough, I can scale down, making it cheaper. > > > He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion >> with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and >> use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks! >> > > I'll try. How old is he now? These kits, unless I fall victim to my > constant vulnerability to distraction, should be available this year. I > should have results within a few months. So ... > > Rich Murray suggested I should sell them for $200, not the $100 I expect > (single heavy water cell, everything ready for current to be supplied, > includes SSNTDs but not development of them). $100 includes a reasonable > profit, and, with some work and volume, I can lower the costs, I expect. I > expect to be working with a nonprofit (and the whole "business" might be > sold to a nonprofit) to help subsidize kits. Assuming they work. If they > don't work, back to the drawing board and, I expect, a lot of back-and-forth > with those who have done SPAWAR/Galileo cells before. The risk is entirely > mine, plus the kind soul who loaned me $2000 interest-free, after donating > $1000. And that loan is effectively secured by inventory of precious > materials.) > > I am committed to announcing my results as they are available. But I won't > assume that "failure" is anything but failure, until and unless the success > of others can be clearly explained away. Pretty unlikely. > > (Like, they don't work, but then, with some tweak, they *appear* to work, > but the mechanism is shown. And then this mechanism is shown to apply to > other positive results. And then we realize that we all fell down a > complicated polywater well. Given what I know of the state of research, > very, very unlikely, but there is one strident advocate for this view, Kirk > Shanahan. If I can get a cell to work, maybe he'll buy one to prove how > stupid it all is. Put up or shut up, Kirk! -- he reads this list from time > to time.) > >
