OK Jones, you claim SiC because this fits with your concept of
plasmons while you claim I ignore SiC because it is not required in my
crack theory. Actually, I reject plasmons simply because they can not
initiate a nuclear reaction in a material. You will have to wait until
you read my book to fully understand this claim. However, it has no
relationship to the crack theory. As for what Rossi et al. claim, we
have no way to know what is real and what is translation error or
simply sloppy description.
Ed Storms
On Jan 26, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, why focus on paint? Various methods exist to turn a metal
surface black so that it would emit radiation effectively.
Well, this is not my focus but it is what Penon stated: paint.
Of course we know that Penon had already screwed up big time by
releasing the study, which he was not authorized to do. What else
did he get wrong?
Not only that, Rossi said that the external surface was coated with
“Black paint”. He failed to mention anything except the external
surface. That’s right – read the write-up. The paint on the interior
is someone’s invention.
BTW - the paint is proprietary formulation, resistant up to 1200° C,
made specifically for Leonardo Corp. by Universokrema, Treviso, Italy.
This stuff is thick gook. I have used something similar and IT
CANNOT BE APPLIED EVENLY due to extremely high solids content.
However the image clearly shows a black smooth interior, which is
consistent with SiC but is not consistent with SS or even painted SS
since it is smooth.
I agree with Bob, absolutely no benefit would result from using a
SiC tube.
Wait a minute ! There are several strong benefits, to the extent
that one accepts plasmons/polaritons as the operative mechanism.
Since you have an alternative theory involving cracks as the
operative mechanism, then of course you do would not automatically
accept the plasmon explanation. Otherwise any unbiased observer
would instantly see the value of SiC and its monochromatic IR
spectrum for plasmons.
There is almost no doubt in my mind that this tube is SiC and that
it is one of the ones which Rossi and Focardi obtained from ENEA –
which are ductile.
They may or may not be ductile because of the presence of CNT – that
is the only speculation.
Jones
