Bob, the entire particle of Ni is not loaded, which is impossible.
Only the treated surface is loaded where the cracks are formed. The
surface is not pure not Ni and the crystal structure shows.
Ed
On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
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
