At 12:27 PM 7/11/2012, David Roberson wrote:
Abd, do you have information concerning the relative magnitude of
the power input drop relative to the nominal value in its
absence? Are we speaking of a large percentage change?
The change is significant. I saw this in certain data, and discovered
that a number of researchers in the field were familiar with it.
Looking at the ENEA replication of the Energetic Technologies
SuperWave work, a "dc input" experiment has a plot of Pin, Pout, and
electrolyte temperature. There are two episodes of elevated
temperature and XP. Both show a sudden drop in input power preceding
the elevated temperature and XP. That is, the first sign of the
anomaly is the reduction of input power. The increase in
temperature/XP follows immediately.
The paper is "Replication of Condensed Matter Heat Production," by
McKubre et al, ACS LENR Sourcebook, 2008, pp 219-247. The chart is on
p. 240, and it is discussed on p. 236.
McKubre et al ascribe the reduction of resistance to local heating:
"During the excess power burst the input power reduces due to the
strong heating of the cathode and electrolyte canusing a reduction
of the cathode interfacial impedance and the electrolyte resistivity
(at constant dc durrent)."
It is not clear from the data that the reduction is due to local
heating, because the reduction is not "during" the excess power
burst. It precedes it, slightly. However, the excess power burst is
measured through the temperature of the cell (not the cathode), so
there will be a delay. From the data presented, it seems difficult or
impossible to distinguish between a very local heating -- in the
interface layer, which is quite thin -- and a reduction in impedance
from a different cause, such as increased ionization.
These heat episodes were with the power supply operating in constant
current mode. This power supply mode can hold current constant very
accurately, with a response time in the order of microseconds. So a
reduction in input power is a reduction in measured voltage, thus
represents a decrease in cell resistance.
The reduction in input power cannot be the cause of the increase in
temperature, one would expect the reversed effect, in fact. We'd
think that reduced input power would result in reduced temperature,
except for the anomalous effect creating apparent XP, excess power.
In that chart, input power is quite constant until this anomaly shows
up, for over three hours as shown on the plot. Input power drops, the
first episode, from 200 mW to about 50 mW. Since current is constant,
this represents a resistance being cut by 75%.
The resistance then increases back to *almost* what it was before,
after a few minutes at most. (One wishes for the raw data! I am sure
they are collecting data at a much higher rate than they are plotting!)
Some level of XP remains, input power slowly rises to the previous
level, then it drops again, not so far this time, but again abruptly.
200 mW down to about 130 mW. Again the output temperature rises, to
an even higher level. This time the lowered resistance is sustained,
quite flat, for almost two hours. When the resistance again abruptly
rises, the output power gradually falls.
Looking at the other chart in the paper showing a fast episode, the
L30 experiment, we see a fast rise in temperature simultaneously with
the resistance drop. They represent the same plot time. In this case
the time scale has been expanded, there are 18 data points per 0.2
hour. That would be 40 seconds per plot point.
I can't disentangle the timing of the onset, though, because the
critical transient is obscured under the heavier plot line for the
Output power.
It is quite obvious that researchers have not considered the
resistance reduction to be very important, or it would have been
plotted differently. This experiment is puzzling, because output
power was substantially less than input power, though rising to meet
it. Just before the transient, the input power was at about 130 mW,
and the output power had risen to roughly 110 mW. What I'm used to
seeing with CF XP bursts is that XP is running at about zero before
the burst. Here it may have been negative.
The analysis looks at this power burst and, considering calorimeter
characteristics, they estimate it as equivalent to 7 W for 600 seconds.
The initial purpose of my inquiry is not to explain the effect, but
to examine and characterize it. How reproducible is it? Some of the
data I've seen shows that it is quite reproducible. Lots of CF data
is not presented in a way to make it visible.
However, given the effect, we can speculate a bit about the cause.
Something rather drastic is happening in these cells, and it's
associated with power bursts.
Notice that if the cause is the temperature rise of the interfacial
layer, this is strongly indicative that the power burst is being
sourced at or near the surface of the cathode, not in the bulk of the
cathode, nor in the electrolyte itself. A sudden massive rise in
recombination at the cathode surface could explain this, though I
doubt that this idea would withstand quantitative analysis.
Once what is already known about this effect is documented,
experimental exploration will be suggested.
There is an obvious possible cause, given the roughly known LENR
underneath the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. That would be ionizing
radiation, low energy, probably alphas, which requires only that new
helium have some residual energy after whatever mechanism is
distributing the vast bulk of the fusion energy to the cell contents.
The FPHE is now known to be a surface effect, the reactions are
taking place at or very near the surface. Roughly half of the alphas
will have, probably, a vector that takes them into the lattice, where
they become largely trapped, not easily mobile. The rest, which are
captured in gas analysis from these cells, will have vectors that
take them through the interface layer.
Low-energy alpha particles transfer their energy efficiently to
ionization of atoms they pass near. (I originally had the opposite
impression, that the most ionization per unit track length would
occur at higher energies. No. Higher energy particles zip through
with less local effect. When I saw conical tracks in LR-115, the
narrow end of the cone was the point at which the particle was
transferring enough energy to disrupt the cellulose nitrate, with the
fat end being the point where the particle came to rest. I thought
the opposite, until a note passed on to me from Pamela Mosier-Boss
disabused me of the notion.)
All of the residual energy would be deposited in the interface layer,
probably, as ionization. (This would be a small fraction of the total
released energy.)
A quantitative analysis would be nice, and might predict actual data.
Or it might not.
What is actually seen?
I've suggested that analysis of helium that establishes a precise
profile for the trapped helium, as to depth, could lead to an
estimate of the energy of formation of the helium. This, in turn,
could lead to an estimate of the effect of this helium on the
interface layer, which could then be compared with experimental results.
The suggested helium analysis has never been done, there are only
gross indications that helium is found within a certain distance from
the surface, I don't recall the value, but 50 microns comes to mind.
I think that was measured by removing 50 microns or so of cathode,
from bulk cathode experiments, and finding no helium in the remaining
cathode material.
What's been done with more accuracy is measuring the helium in the
cell gases, finding that it correlates with heat, at a ratio
consistent with a hypothesis that the reaction, whatever it is, is
converting deuterium to helium. No other ash has been identified that
qualifies in this way.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 1:04 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the
Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
(this was also posted to the private list for CMNS researchers.)
It's come to my attention that some researchers have frequently
observed a sudden drop in resistance of electrolytic cells associated
with the onset of XP bursts. I'm seeking to document this.
In experiments where there is electrolytic power in constant current
mode, this shows up as a drop in voltage, usually shown in reports as
a drop in input power, if input power is plotted.
This seems to appear after substantial periods of stability in resistance.
One paper which commented on the drop attributed it to heating of the
electrolyte close to the cathode. If so, this signal shows up before
cathodic heating has had time to increase cell temperature. The drop
is abrupt in what I've seen.
There is another possible explanation, though, which would be an
increase in conductivity in that region due to ionization induced by
short-range charged particle radiation. This radiation could be well
below the Hagelstein limit and still have this effect, if it
originates at or very near the cathode surface. (The "Hagelstein
limit" is a limit set by Peter Hagestein in a Naturwissenschaften
paper studying the expected behavior of charged particle radiation.
The absence of predicted effects from high-energy charged particle
radiation led him to set a limit of 20 KeV for substantial charged
particle radiation from cold fusion experiments.
If radiation is the cause, the resistance drop may appear even before
the reaction has time to raise the temperature of the electrolyte.
Hence I'm requesting communication from researchers regarding
experience with CF electrolysis, in regard to resistance reduction
(or the lack of same), associated with anomalous heat or other
signals of a nuclear reaction.
Thanks in advance.
