Thanks, Ed. How were the samples made? Is it a process that can be automated?
Jed's original assertion was "Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones?" That's only success within a limited context which is the duration of the experiments (or "tests" or whatever you'd like to call them). I'm not pooh-poohing the results but I think that to claim or imply that the technology of LENR is understood in any "deep" way or on the edge of practicality is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's experience can't be sure if a sample will work or not. [mg] On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be > removed from the cell and be restarted. But, at some point, the energy > production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on the surface > and so much stress is created by changes in composition that the active > cracks grow too big to support the LENR process. This lack of stability is > one of the major limitatons in using electrolysis to study LENR. > Nevertheless, the amount of power and the resulting extra energy is too > great to be explained by any chemical process. Even creation of tritium > stops after a awhile, never to start again. Very frustrating!! > > As for why some worked and some did not, I know of only two useful > criteria. The Pd must load to high D/Pd and it can only do this if > excessive cracks do not form throughout the metal. Most Pd forms internal > cracks I call excess volume. In addition, the surface must be free of > poisons that slow reaction with the resulting D2 gas. Violante determined > that crystal size and its preferred orientation was also important. > Nevertheless, I have made thin deposits of Pd on an inert metal work and > several other people have made codeposition make heat, although I have not > had success with this method. People keep looking for the critical > feature, but I believe they have not yet looked at small enough scale to > see the active sites, which I believe are in the 1-5 nm range. > > Ed > > > > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: > > A question for Ed: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated >> with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his >> criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success >> rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the >> 4 good ones? >> > > Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and repeatedly" ... how > long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they > worked? Can working duplicates be made? > > [mg] > > >
