Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles.  I have no idea what the 
sintering and melting temperatures of those structures.  We know that carbon 
nano structures have very good high temperature properties.  A Ni-H nano 
structure may even be better at high temperatures.  


I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance.  Something Rossi 
introduced say white hot conditions.  Of course it may be a fake.  I think he 
has been honest with what he has said.  He may withhold information also, 
however.  


I learned much in reactor design due to early failures.  The new designs after 
failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and greater power 
output.   I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his failures.


Bob









Sent from Windows Mail





From: Roarty, Francis X
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎51‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com






Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in 
the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring 
the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does  point to the continued run 
away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse 
before it gets better :_)

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \"The Explanation of Low 
Energy Nuclear Reaction\"

 


One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed 
in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the 
nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then 
the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles.

 

The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the 
temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites 
will melt and be destroyed by the high heat.

 

However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, 
when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and 
produces a power output of a megawatt.

 

During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from 
primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen 
containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. 

 

The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. 
At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate.

 

By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction 
mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of 
experimental results.

 

 


 


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:


The simplest answer to these question is YES.


A bit longer one;


- as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive


and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they


are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see


what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity


or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i 
am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of 
cracks can be ACTIVE


 


- yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to 
learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process


(let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the 


complete cell- F& P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion)


 


- i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity


of the active sites- it is a captivating story


 


Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that


nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete 
scenario.


 


peter


 


 


 


.




 


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote:



Peter, thank you for the kind words.


 


Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to 
bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you 
propose nano structures also for your NAE?  If you are, you also have to 
explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or 
be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. 
 Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels.


 


 


 


Jojo


 


 


 




----- Original Message ----- 


From: Peter Gluck 


To: VORTEX 


Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM


Subject: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \"The Explanation of Low Energy 
Nuclear Reaction\"


 




Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. 


It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question:


 


What is the essential difference between the classic LENR


with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT


with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level?


 


My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis


of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed


active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous


generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active 
sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that


appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence


of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated 
temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the 
LENR+ progress.


The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the 
surface of the metal, changes.


 


I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please:


http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858


 


Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal a 
lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with 
details that can help us to go from principles to theories.


 


Peter


 


 


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote:




In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a nanoantenna, a 
nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle,  a nano-this and a 
nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that whatever nano structure 
the NAE is, it will not survive the temperatures we've seen being demonstrated; 
especially with Rossi's hotcat.


 


Is it not obvious to anyone that whatever whatever the NAE is, it couldn't 
possibly be a nanostructure of Nickel.  Nickel will be a homogenous blob of 
partly molten metal at the temperatures we are talking about. And it is known,  
that it will sinter and reshape itself even at temperatures significantly below 
its melting temp.   In other words, GOODBYE NAE.  At best, it is a one-use NAE. 
 An NAE that is a nanostructure Nickel appears to be highly unlikely and 
improbable.


 


That is why, I'm with Ed on this.  People come up with theories that 
conveniently ignore the chemical environment.  In this case, the physical 
melting or sintering point of Nickel.  


 


Axil's theory while sounding erudite and well-researched, has a big hole in the 
middle of it.  Big enough to drive a Mack truck thru.  Unless Axil can explain 
how his Nano antenna NAE can survive the temps, It is my opinion that his 
theory is dead.


 



I broke my self-imposed exile just to say this.  It seems that there are many 
theories being bandied around that simply breaks very important principles.  
Whatever you think of Ed's book, he makes a very important point, we should not 
simply ignore the chemical environment, or physical properties of metals, or 
thermodynamic principles, etc if they do not fit our theories.


 


 


Jojo


 


 






 

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck 


Cluj, Romania


http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com






 

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck


Cluj, Romania


http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Reply via email to