The supplier made these samples 8 different ways. They did not give
details. Yes, once the critical variables are mastered, the
manufacturing could be automated. At this time, most of the variables
are unknown. That is the basic reason why LENR is so hard to cause.
We do not understand the important variables. This understanding must
be guided by a useful theory because too many variables are important
to discover them all by chance, as is the present approach.
Ed
On Feb 21, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
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]
