Tom, when you post this as a serious argument I give up.
Alan: I just need to know which bit you disagree with:
(1) that a resistive layer forms
(2) that it heats up the electrode enough.
There is 300C for it to be heated up above the (still wet) electrolyte.
Well, there would be moist gunk at the bottom, probably. I am very reluctant to speculate about the exact characteristics except that it would conduct at least a bit, and the power pushed into it would depend on the applied voltage (how good is F&P's constant current source).
You don't need to speculate about anything. Graphs in the papers show that power dropped to zero.
Alan: I just need to know which bit you disagree with:
(1) that a resistive layer forms
(2) that it heats up the electrode enough.
The idea that putting a resistive layer over a Pd electrode makes it hot is unusual to say the least.. How about coating it with epoxy - would that heat it up?
You don't need to speculate about anything. Graphs in the papers show that power dropped to zero.
Which graphs, in which papers?
Can you be, please, more specific?
After all, you are the LENR librarian.It shouldn't be so difficult for you to provide some better reference.
The idea that putting a resistive layer over a Pd electrode makes it hot is unusual to say the least.. How about coating it with epoxy - would that heat it up?
Well, THH forgot to specify that, once the resistive layer is deposited onto the cathode, the electrolytic current necessarily flows through it, so that most of the voltage drop occurs across this deposits and consequently, for the well known joule effect, most of the electric power (up to 50 W ) is dissipated in this layer and can heat the cathode up to even 300 °C and locally melt the plastic support.
The idea that putting a resistive layer over a Pd electrode makes it hot is unusual to say the least.. How about coating it with epoxy - would that heat it up?
Actually - since epoxy is high resistance - driven perfect CC it would get very hot!
But of course this mechanism relies on the gunky resistive layer being not too much an insulator., since I doubt the CC source can go above 300V.
I think you guys are inventing scenarios that just never exist in real life. That you have no hope of ever replicating.
To many clowns in this forum...
I have made mineral deposits glow incandescent from boiling out tap water with 120 V AC
I have made mineral deposits glow incandescent from boiling out tap water with 120 V AC
Very interesting.
So, you did the test that Alan Smith had asked to do.
Could you, please, provide us some more details about your test?
I have made mineral deposits glow incandescent from boiling out tap water with 120 V AC
There would be more current available here (I guess) than the 500mA in the FP experiment.
How was your 120V source fused?
THH
So, you did the test that Alan Smith had asked to do.
Not quite it would seem. AC not DC, tap water not D2O + LiOD - as for the input current, let's see,
Not quite it would seem. AC not DC, tap water not D2O + LiOD - as for the input current, let's see,
Actually, you had asked for a "kitchen table experiment" with light water (1).
As for other details, I hope Paradigmnoia will let us know, so we will see the differences with respect to your requests.
Anyway, I feel I can predict since now that there will be a big difference: his electrodes will have started cooling right after the complete boil-off of water, as actually happened in F&P's "1992 boil-off experiment".
(1) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
Anyway, I feel I can predict since now that there will be a big difference: his electrodes will have started cooling right after the complete boil-off of water, as actually happened in F&P's "1992 boil-off experiment".
Which is when the KEF supports melted.
Which is when the KEF supports melted.
Absolutely not, if you mean that supports have melted after the complete boil-off of the cells. What evidence do you have to say this?
Concluding the "Simplicity Paper", F&P wrote two consecutive sentences, separated by a semicolon: "following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time, Fig 8;" and, immediately after, "the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC."
The first sentence is completely wrong. If you want to know why, just check the position of the vertical arrow on Fig.8, as I have suggested to you several times.
The second sentence is not strictly connected to the previous one. This is a separate observation, in which F&P reported that some supports (they don't specify which of the four) showed some signs of melting, but unfortunately they never provided any picture to document these melts and their extent. In any case, they could have seen these signs only after the conclusions of the experiment, after having removed the salt deposited on the electrodes and their supports. Therefore no one knows when these melts (if any) occurred. In case, these melts could have occurred when voltage (and power) was at its maximum and the residual electrolyte was a thin layer of liquid at the bottom of the cell.
That's just it Ascoli - your imaginary cells are dry when it suits one argument, and wet when it suits another. I used to believe in something called 'target theory' in radiochemistry, but it turned out it was a moving target so I abandoned it. Was this your role model?
In more detail, I was young (about 9) and had read about electrolysis a bit and thought that making some gasses would be neat. Without much thought, I filled a 2 quart jar about 80% full of water and cut a two prong AC electrical cord off of something, separated the bare wire ends, stripped some insulation off (about 3/4 inch each) and twisted the wire strands tight. I plopped the wire end in the jar of water, so that the two wire leads were about 2 inches apart, sort of coiling and lumping the wire so it stayed in place. (This was test one). I plugged in the plug end into the electrical outlet, and was satisfied that each wire had a nice stream of bubbles.
I didn’t care that the gasses would be mixed at that time, since I wasn’t capturing it yet. I needed a diode or two for that to be done properly and hadn’t torn something electrical apart to get some yet.
After about 20 minutes I checked the jar and it was bubbling well, although the water was now a bit pale blue-green. I then almost promptly forgot about it. I came back a half hour later and now the water was boiling vigorously, but enough had evaporated and been electrolysized away that it wasn’t splashing out of the jar. The green-blue colour was stronger, and there was a deposit of pale blue green powder on the jar where it wasn’t wet, so I thought it would be neat to let the water finish electroly-boil away and see what the powder was all about. I foolishly forgot about it again (a virtual death trap to anyone that might happen upon it), for about another hour when a bright flash from the bathroom caught my eye.
The jar was now well boiled out, and the scum near the bottom of the jar had made a weird “sculpture” lattice formed by the current, bubbles, minerals etc., and it was glowing bright incandescent white-orange. I pulled the plug from the wall, the glass shattered, and I cleaned up the glass and mess from bathroom before my parents got home and discovered any of it.
In more detail, I was young (about 9) and had read about electrolysis a bit and thought that making some gasses would be neat. Without much thought, I filled a 2 quart jar about 80% full of water and cut a two prong AC electrical cord off of something, separated the bare wire ends, stripped some insulation off (about 3/4 inch each) and twisted the wire strands tight. I plopped the wire end in the jar of water, so that the two wire leads were about 2 inches apart, sort of coiling and lumping the wire so it stayed in place. (This was test one). I plugged in the plug end into the electrical outlet, and was satisfied that each wire had a nice stream of bubbles.
I didn’t care that the gasses would be mixed at that time, since I wasn’t capturing it yet. I needed a diode or two for that to be done properly and hadn’t torn something electrical apart to get some yet.
After about 20 minutes I checked the jar and it was bubbling well, although the water was now a bit pale blue-green. I then almost promptly forgot about it. I came back a half hour later and now the water was boiling vigorously, but enough had evaporated and been electrolysized away that it wasn’t splashing out of the jar. The green-blue colour was stronger, and there was a deposit of pale blue green powder on the jar where it wasn’t wet, so I thought it would be neat to let the water finish electroly-boil away and see what the powder was all about. I foolishly forgot about it again (a virtual death trap to anyone that might happen upon it), for about another hour when a bright flash from the bathroom caught my eye.
The jar was now well boiled out, and the scum near the bottom of the jar had made a weird “sculpture” lattice formed by the current, bubbles, minerals etc., and it was glowing bright incandescent white-orange. I pulled the plug from the wall, the glass shattered, and I cleaned up the glass and mess from bathroom before my parents got home and discovered any of it.
Thank you. Very interesting indeed. We don't know how many years ago this happened, but you have really a good memory anyway, or this fact struck you a lot.
Too bad you kept it a secret instead of organizing a press conference, otherwise you could have been eligible for a Nobel Prize and possibly become the youngest Nobel laureate ever! 
Out of the joke. Your test is not very similar to the one proposed by Alan Smith. I don't know if you continued to cultivate your passion for electrochemistry or if you stopped it after that misadventure. In case, do you now have a couple of diodes, a multimeter and some free time to replicate, on your kitchen table and in the safest way, something a little bit more similar to the F&P open cell experiment?
Thank you. Very interesting indeed. We don't know how many years ago this happened, but you have really a good memory anyway, or this fact struck you a lot.
Too bad you kept it a secret instead of organizing a press conference, otherwise you could have been eligible for a Nobel Prize and possibly become the youngest Nobel laureate ever!
Out of the joke. Your test is not very similar to the one proposed by Alan Smith. I don't know if you continued to cultivate your passion for electrochemistry or if you stopped it after that misadventure. In case, do you now have a couple of diodes, a multimeter and some free time to replicate, on your kitchen table and in the safest way, something a little bit more similar to the F&P open cell experiment?
I remember it well, if not the year (I may have been as old as 13), because every time I forgot about the experiment and remembered I was worried I would find my sister dead next to it when I checked on it.
Also the bathroom was next to a window that allowed escape to the house roof, not without a little danger, which was quite fun.
