In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:27:04 -0700: Hi, [snip]
Most CF experiments use pure D, so there is very little if any H to exchange. I also think 2.4 eV is ridiculous. The difference in ionization energy between H and D is just a few meV (small m). >From: Roarty, Francis X > > > >I think Grabowski might be suspecting ashless chemistry but is afraid to be >lumped with Mills. I Still maintain that confined catalytic action (or >change in Casimir force) can repeatedly disassociate gas molecules -pitting >nature against itself until the action drives the atoms out of the cavity >or destroys the geometry. He indicates the present ash does not account for >all the excess heat. > > > >Fran > > > > > >Looks like he goes back long before Mills. In trying to gather more >information on this, it turns out that K.S. Grabowski has followed in the >footsteps of J.J Grabowski in the field of "hydrogen deuterium exchange¡± >reactions, going back quite a long time. Father -> son? Also there is a new >book on Amazon, which I would have ordered, were it not for the exorbitant >price: > > > >http://www.amazon.com/Hydrogen-bonding-Challenges-Computational- >Chemistry/dp/1402048521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8 <http://www.amazon.com/Hydrogen- >bonding-Challenges-Computational- >Chemistry/dp/1402048521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279570538&sr=8-1> >&s=books&qid=1279570538&sr=8-1 > > > > > >I still cannot find the expected heating value of the exchange; however, >this paper indicates that ¡°The activation energy for the H+ ¡ê D+ exchange >was determined to be 2.4 eV, less than half the value obtained by pure >thermal means, suggesting that under the application of an electric field >the deuteron (proton) diffusion mechanism is different.¡± > > > >http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a755768593 > > > >Which value sounds rather high. No wonder there is some interest in this as >an alternative to LENR. For that, it must be both reversible and asymmetric. > > > >+ IF + ¡¦ there was asymmetry in the exchange, due perhaps to the Casimir >cavity, then this could be the kind of chemical modality that fits the >circumstances of thermal gain well, without recourse to LERN or fractional >hydrogen. And exchange-chemistry is not always symmetrical, so this cannot >be ruled out. > > > >The ultimate source of gainful chemical energy then becomes something more >like phase-change; and if there is net gain due to some asymmetry, then it >must be due to ZPE, no? > > > >Jones > > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
