The concentration of oxygen at that point would be so slight that most methods of chemically removing it, any I can think of, simply won't work.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Wm. Scott Smith <scott...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen, > pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not > saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment? > > ________________________________ > Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300 > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future > From: peter.gl...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Dear Fran, > We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a > physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology > and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of > partially damaged sites. > There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps > Rossi has found a better one. > Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be > achieved and maintained? > Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than > Ni- but only experiment can say. > Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers > are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 > ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of > copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X > <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > > Peter, > > The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a > limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest > instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small > amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the > geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in > vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious > difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and > alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall > surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and > kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from > collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder > should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the > powder still under partial vacuum. > > > > Fran > > > > From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future > > > > Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that > CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases > from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know > how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and > especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high > temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of > > foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. > > > > We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to > air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it > was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. > > > > I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a > working material/setup. This is a simple, > > cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all > those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. > > Peter > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X > <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
