Dear Ed, You got the idea, NAE/active sites are NOT stable, they come, work or not and go, and come again incessantly. A dynamic vision, not a static one is necessary. Peter
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > No matter what is said, Yugo and others will distort the comments to agree > with their belief. If we accept Rossi, we are stupid and deceived. If we > criticize Rossi, this is used to show that Rossi is wrong. They do not even > attempt to understand what part of a claim may be real. They simply reject > all claims that CF is real. > > The method of evaluating the energy described in the paper may be correct. > However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a > thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured > temperature. I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a > container from which the total power generated could be measured. These are > not difficult or complicated things to do. Why are half measures repeatedly > used? Why must we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as > issues? > > Maybe the NAE is not cracks. Nevertheless, something must be produced in > the material that is not in normal material. Creating this condition must > follow the laws of chemistry and be stable at high temperatures. You claim > that Yiannis has told me what condition is required to form the NAE. He > claims the surface structure of the Ni is the required condition. This does > not make any sense because that structure in not stable and it has not been > shown how it can host a nuclear reaction, yet you accept this claim without > question. Why? > > You reject cracks without knowing anything about their stability or how > they can be managed. How do you know that cracks might not be present in > the surface structure proposed by Yiannis. In short, deciding who has > identified the NAE is premature. I suggest you keep an open mind. > > Ed Storms > > > > > On May 20, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > > Dear Ed, > > Your arguments here have great success, our dear Mary Yugo is using > them in her comments for annihilating this report. > I think you as NAE expert are focusing on the second idea. > 1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes but > how great must be these changes in order to invalidate completely the > results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors are in total error? Very > improbable > they are so unskilled that they hve not realized this. > > I have tried long ago to convince you that at high temperatures the > mortlity of the NAE is high but their natality is also high. LENR+ works > this way at > high NAE density in direct opposition with LENR with preformed NAE many of > them inactivated. I had a moment of truth when I have seen that DGT's > active core worked well over 650 C- this is a different process! Yiannis > has tried to tell you where are the NAE located and what's their nature, > they are > not cracks. And this is fine because cracking is essentialy unmanageable > > This Report is far from perfect but its conclusions are certain: lots of > excess heat. > > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >> *Date: *May 20, 2013 9:11:57 AM MDT >> *To: *c...@googlegroups.com >> *Cc: *Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >> *Subject: **Re: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:* >> >> Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered. >> >> 1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The amount >> of heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective total >> emissivity of the surface. This value will change with time and >> temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be determined as a function of >> temperature both before and after the hot-cat was heated. Details about >> how the temperature of the surface was determined also need to be provided. >> A detailed description of the test is required before these claims can be >> accepted. >> >> 2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures? This >> time will determine whether the device is a practical source of energy. The >> extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a short time before the NAE >> is destroyed, the value of the design is limited. >> >> Ed Storms >> On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "CMNS" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
