I was really surprised to hear at ICCF that it takes something like 4000 bar to load a Ni lattice with neutral hydrons. I may have remembered the actual number wrong, but it was a lot. I suppose that if Ni were loaded using smaller hydron ions, they could create a lot of internal stress. I am out of my comfort zone by a large margin in setting any expectation for the crack behavior once loaded. Note that I believe that Rossi uses carbonyl Ni powder and claimed pure Ni only worked at very low levels - that's why he added the catalyst.
Bob Carbonyl Nickel is Nickel produced from Nickel Carbonyl. Producing Nickel this way, the Nickel forms 'pointy' or 'spiky' grains. Regarding FeO3 used as a 'wedge' to open and keep open nano cracks in Nickel: What about the fact that Nickel is expanding as soon as it forms NickelHydride. Would that alone not be sufficient to keep the process running? Best, Rob Woudenberg Carbonyl Nickel is Nickel produced from Nickel Carbonyl. Producing Nickel this way, the Nickel forms 'pointy' or 'spiky' grains. Regarding FeO3 used as a 'wedge' to open and keep open nano cracks in Nickel: What about the fact that Nickel is expanding as soon as it forms NickelHydride. Would that alone not be sufficient to keep the process running? Best, Rob Woudenberg On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>wrote: > The micrograph is of carbonyl Ni. Look it up. For example, Hunter > Chemical AH50. Also, Vale T255. It is the same as what is shown in Kim's > slides. Carbonyl is the process - the particles are pure Ni. > On Aug 23, 2013 3:25 PM, "Axil Axil" <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> DGT has never mentioned the use of carbonyl. There powder is pure >> nickel. The surface of the particles are processed with a proprietary >> process to resurface the particle with a Rutile structure. >> >> Please show me a reference to the use of carbonyl in this process. In >> fact, the use of carbonyl is incompatible with the rutile process. >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Yes. What is shown is a carbonyl Ni particle. It has no nanowires. It >>> does have points, but no nanowires. Nanowires would not be visible at the >>> scale of that micrograph. >>> On Aug 23, 2013 2:29 PM, "Axil Axil" <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Are you looking at slide 3, fabrication of fuels and reaction cells? >>>> >>>> the box of interest starts with the following... >>>> >>>> Modified Ni Crystal powders.... >>>> >>>> The 5 micron particle is pictured on that page. Can you see it now... >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins >>>> <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> The carbony Ni particles used by DGT, as was shown in Kim's >>>>> presentation, have NO nanowires at all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Not for the first time, with amazing generosity, DGT has provided us >>>>>> with a picture of a 5 micron nanowire coated micro-particle in their >>>>>> ICCF-18 presentation that they have originally engineered base on >>>>>> suggested >>>>>> information derived from Rossi’s revelations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There must be a million nanowires coming off that fuzzy looking >>>>>> micro-particle. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If 10 nanoparticle aggregation form on each nanowire tip and 100 hot >>>>>> spots from inside each aggregation, that drive the NAE count for each >>>>>> micro-particle up to 10 to the power of 9 hot spots per micro-particle. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If 10,000,000 micro particles as used in the 3 grams of nickel power >>>>>> reaction activator, then the NAE count goes up to 10 to the 16 power of >>>>>> possible NAE sites in a Ni/H reactor. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Clearly, this micro-powder covered with nanowires approach to the >>>>>> reaction has many orders of magnitude numerical superiority over the >>>>>> crack >>>>>> regime. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Edmund Storms < >>>>>> stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter, I'm simply telling you what your comments mean to me. I'm not >>>>>>> thinking in your place. If I have gotten the wrong understanding from >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> you have written, than you are free to tell me and to correct your >>>>>>> writings >>>>>>> so that other people do not also get the wrong impression, which is >>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>> the case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not think a crack is equally active along its length. I'm only >>>>>>> proposing that somewhere in the gap, the fusion reaction is possible. I >>>>>>> have described ALL aspects of the model. I'm only giving the broad >>>>>>> requirements. Once these are accepted, you will be told more details. I >>>>>>> see no reason to waste my time if the basic claim is rejected. I would >>>>>>> rather spend my time using the model to make the effect work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>> On Aug 23, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Ed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would ask you to not think in my place, I really don't like it.It >>>>>>> is typical for dictatures and I had enough from it starting with :"Der >>>>>>> Fuhrer denkt fur uns alle" and ending with Ceausescu's omniscience. I >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> the right to think independently. >>>>>>> Citing you: >>>>>>> *you are assuming that D+Pd involves a different mechanism, a >>>>>>> different NAE, and different nuclear products. * >>>>>>> Clearly the products of reaction are different for Pd and Ni H >>>>>>> simply because >>>>>>> the reactants are different. I have NOT told that the mechanism of >>>>>>> reaction >>>>>>> are different. >>>>>>> A question for you- a crack however beautiful is inherently very >>>>>>> asymmetric >>>>>>> do you think a crack nanometers broad but microns or even >>>>>>> millimeters long >>>>>>> is equally active along its entire lengths? Isn't it more plausible >>>>>>> that inside >>>>>>> this labyrinthic formation there are some even more preferential >>>>>>> short areas >>>>>>> where the activity is focused? And are you convinced that thse short >>>>>>> areas >>>>>>> are so different from a nanostructure? Couldn't be the things a bit >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> complicated but actually more unitary- as you otherwise also suggest? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it is not possible to decide now sitting at our PC's if >>>>>>> Nature uses >>>>>>> only one soltion or more for creating excess energy. It is more >>>>>>> useful >>>>>>> to find new ways to force Nature to give us what we need and want >>>>>>> and not care so much if she is whining a bit for that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Edmund Storms < >>>>>>> stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 23, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Bob, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for the idea of cracks' aesthetics! I know it well, I >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> you have remarked the second Motto by Leonard Cohen based >>>>>>>> on this idea.. >>>>>>>> It happens that very early in my professional career I learned >>>>>>>> about the >>>>>>>> beauty and variety of cracks -when working at the Civil Engineering >>>>>>>> Faculy of the Timisoara- Polytechnics, Chair of Concrete. It is a >>>>>>>> world of cracks in concrete see e.g. >>>>>>>> http://indecorativeconcrete.com/idcn/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Why-Concrete-Cracks.pdf >>>>>>>> Mistery and beauty are different from function. Let's admit the >>>>>>>> possible role >>>>>>>> cracks in Pd in the FPCell, is this something good for the results? >>>>>>>> However Paintelli's process is based on very smart and beautiful >>>>>>>> nanostructures more sophisticated and educated as cracks, and LENR+ >>>>>>>> uses >>>>>>>> the high art of nanoplasmonics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How do you know this Peter? Besides, you are assuming that D+Pd >>>>>>>> involves a different mechanism, a different NAE, and different nuclear >>>>>>>> products. Consequently, the number of miracles is squared rather than >>>>>>>> reduced. Do you really want to go down that path? What happens the >>>>>>>> effect >>>>>>>> occurs using Ti? Does this involve an additional method and mechanism? >>>>>>>> What how is tritium formed? Is this reaction different in Ni compared >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> Pd? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe the phenomenon is so rare and unusual that only one >>>>>>>> condition and mechanism would be able to cause it. You take the >>>>>>>> opposite >>>>>>>> view, that every material and isotope requires a different method and >>>>>>>> NAE. >>>>>>>> This gives people a choice. I wonder how the vote would go? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bob Higgins < >>>>>>>> rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Recently, Peter published in his blog his reasons for hoping that >>>>>>>>> the NAE aren’t cracks. After considering it, I believe he misses the >>>>>>>>> uniqueness, durability, and beauty of the cracks that are being >>>>>>>>> considered. >>>>>>>>> **** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To the uniqueness point… Consider that a crack is different than >>>>>>>>> just two surfaces in close proximity. A crack is like a horn with a >>>>>>>>> throat >>>>>>>>> of minimum gap: the lattice spacing. Imagine the throat at x=0 with >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> crack surface spacing widening as x increases. The crack provides a >>>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>>> environment in its smallest regions. Near x=0, the environment for a >>>>>>>>> hydron asymptotically approaches that of the lattice. In this region, >>>>>>>>> electron orbitals extend across or at least into the crack. Perhaps >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> this near-lattice spacing there is only room for an H+ ion (the case >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> Ni, but for Pd there is room at the lattice spacing for a neutral >>>>>>>>> monatomic >>>>>>>>> hydron). As x increases, the crack surface spacing (the gap) >>>>>>>>> increases >>>>>>>>> allowing room for neutral monatomic hydrons. At greater x, the crack >>>>>>>>> spacing would support neutral H2 molecules, and beyond this, the >>>>>>>>> crack is >>>>>>>>> probably uninteresting. This unique gradient of hydron boundary >>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>> always exists in the crack near it throat (near x=0), even if the >>>>>>>>> crack >>>>>>>>> were to begin zipping itself open.**** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To the durability point… In my past I had occasion to work with >>>>>>>>> MEMS structures. When I first saw MEMS cantilever beams being used >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> switches and other functions, my first thought was, “Those are going >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> break!” What I learned was that a structure’s strength is inversely >>>>>>>>> proportional to its size. So a building scaled twice as large will >>>>>>>>> be half >>>>>>>>> as strong. This is why you can drop an ant from as high as you wish >>>>>>>>> and he >>>>>>>>> will hit the ground running. Compare a 3 meter diving board >>>>>>>>> (cantilever) >>>>>>>>> to a 3 micron cantilever – the 3 micron cantilever will be a million >>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>> more robust. The cracks being considered for NAE are nanoscale >>>>>>>>> cracks, but >>>>>>>>> our natural experience is with cracks having dimensions of ~1cm. A >>>>>>>>> 10nm >>>>>>>>> crack, will be a million times more mechanically robust than a 1cm >>>>>>>>> crack. >>>>>>>>> At the nanoscale, the two split apart surfaces will be very stiff and >>>>>>>>> behind the throat of the crack (x<0) there will be compression forces >>>>>>>>> trying to restore the crack to its closed position. The surfaces may >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>> experience a Casimir closing force. A nanoscale crack will have >>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>> forces trying to heal itself.**** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If nanocracks can heal, then how would the nanocrack form in the >>>>>>>>> first place and what could keep the surfaces apart? I believe a >>>>>>>>> wedge of >>>>>>>>> atom(s) or molecule(s) is needed in the gap to keep the crack open, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> perhaps to form it in the first place. That is why I am using >>>>>>>>> nanoparticles that will alloy with Ni and then I am oxidizing the >>>>>>>>> structure. I use iron oxide nanoparticles. I put down the oxide >>>>>>>>> nanoparticles disposed all across the Ni micro-powder surface, reduce >>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>> partly reduce) the surface so the iron nanoparticles can alloy with >>>>>>>>> the Ni, >>>>>>>>> and then go back and strongly oxidize the metals. When the iron >>>>>>>>> oxidizes, >>>>>>>>> it grows in volume and I hypothesize that it will wedge open a >>>>>>>>> nanocrack. >>>>>>>>> If the iron is then partly reduced it becomes an H2 splitting >>>>>>>>> catalyst, >>>>>>>>> right at the site of the crack.**** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What a beautiful structure I imagine that to be – a nanocrack with >>>>>>>>> a sweep of hydron boundary conditions with an H2 splitting catalyst >>>>>>>>> at its >>>>>>>>> mouth.**** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bob**** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>>>>>>> Cluj, Romania >>>>>>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>>>>>> Cluj, Romania >>>>>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
