Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic
I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic. The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have NAEs still operable in liquid state! Ol' Bab, who was as engineer... On 5/24/2013 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Please people, stay in the real world. The description Alex gives has no relationship to what has been described in the paper or to what is possible. We have no way of knowing the melting point of that material claim to melt. We have no way of knowing how much melted. At the vary least, once the stainless steel container in which the Ni was located formed a hole, the H2 would escape and the nuclear reaction would stop. In addition, we do not know the melting point of the Ni in the container because it was reacted with a secret catalyst. In other words, we know nothing that would support such speculations. Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, You pose some interesting questions. If what you suggest is true, then this form of LENR would be a bulk effect. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com mailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 2:12 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test The other very important piece of the puzzle that this Rossi demo has revealed is how extreme the LENR can get. This tells us important new things about the LENR reaction. When the E-Cat melts down, its temperature reaches at least 2000C. The melting point of the ceramic used is in that temperature range. We know that ceramic is used in the reactor and that the LENR reaction can melt it. This is exciting. At that temperature, the nickel powder and the AISI 310 steel has long reached its melting point. The LENR reaction must be able to function in a liquid metal environment. The concept of an NAE supported in only solid material must be discarded. LENR must function in liquid and vapor. Riddle me that one batman. Collective, in other words, I will be awaiting your theories. SNIP
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic
The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. This info tells me that the inner secure reaction chamber and the surrounding ceramic core melted, but not the outer air cooled surrounding shell. *The reactor was not exposed to the air through a breach in the outer shell. * On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote: I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic. The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have NAEs still operable in liquid state! Ol' Bab, who was as engineer... On 5/24/2013 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Please people, stay in the real world. The description Alex gives has no relationship to what has been described in the paper or to what is possible. We have no way of knowing the melting point of that material claim to melt. We have no way of knowing how much melted. At the vary least, once the stainless steel container in which the Ni was located formed a hole, the H2 would escape and the nuclear reaction would stop. In addition, we do not know the melting point of the Ni in the container because it was reacted with a secret catalyst. In other words, we know nothing that would support such speculations. Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, You pose some interesting questions. If what you suggest is true, then this form of LENR would be a bulk effect. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 2:12 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test The other very important piece of the puzzle that this Rossi demo has revealed is how extreme the LENR can get. This tells us important new things about the LENR reaction. When the E-Cat melts down, its temperature reaches at least 2000C. The melting point of the ceramic used is in that temperature range. We know that ceramic is used in the reactor and that the LENR reaction can melt it. This is exciting. At that temperature, the nickel powder and the AISI 310 steel has long reached its melting point. The LENR reaction must be able to function in a liquid metal environment. The concept of an NAE supported in only solid material must be discarded. LENR must function in liquid and vapor. Riddle me that one batman. Collective, in other words, I will be awaiting your theories. SNIP
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic
David, have you ever actually heated stainless steel. I suggest you take a spoon from your collection in the kitchen and heat it to red hot. You will find that the spoon will turn black but will not ignite. If you keep heating to a higher temperature, it will soften and bend, but will not ignite. So tell me, why would you suggest the stainless in the Rossi device would ignite? Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 3:21 PM, David L Babcock wrote: I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic. The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have NAEs still operable in liquid state! Ol' Bab, who was as engineer... On 5/24/2013 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Please people, stay in the real world. The description Alex gives has no relationship to what has been described in the paper or to what is possible. We have no way of knowing the melting point of that material claim to melt. We have no way of knowing how much melted. At the vary least, once the stainless steel container in which the Ni was located formed a hole, the H2 would escape and the nuclear reaction would stop. In addition, we do not know the melting point of the Ni in the container because it was reacted with a secret catalyst. In other words, we know nothing that would support such speculations. Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, You pose some interesting questions. If what you suggest is true, then this form of LENR would be a bulk effect. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 2:12 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test The other very important piece of the puzzle that this Rossi demo has revealed is how extreme the LENR can get. This tells us important new things about the LENR reaction. When the E-Cat melts down, its temperature reaches at least 2000C. The melting point of the ceramic used is in that temperature range. We know that ceramic is used in the reactor and that the LENR reaction can melt it. This is exciting. At that temperature, the nickel powder and the AISI 310 steel has long reached its melting point. The LENR reaction must be able to function in a liquid metal environment. The concept of an NAE supported in only solid material must be discarded. LENR must function in liquid and vapor. Riddle me that one batman. Collective, in other words, I will be awaiting your theories. SNIP
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic
OK Axil, I presume from this description you assume ALL of the cylinder containing the Ni+H2 melted along with the surrounding ceramic, which in your mind meant the temperature got to and stayed abouve 2000° long enough to completely melt the stainless container and surrounding ceramic. Is this correct? Normally, a device making energy will be hotter in some regions than others. If the temperature gets too hot, the hottest point will melt, which in this case would allow all the H2 to leave. This would immediately stop the source of energy. Once this happens, were does the energy come from to melt the rest of the material? Actually, I expect a small; amount of liquid metal would contact the ceramic, lower its melting point, and produce a small amount of local melt. The description was not detailed enough to properly describe what actually happened. Until we see a picture of the melted region, what is the purpose of your speculation? Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. This info tells me that the inner secure reaction chamber and the surrounding ceramic core melted, but not the outer air cooled surrounding shell. The reactor was not exposed to the air through a breach in the outer shell. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic. The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have NAEs still operable in liquid state! Ol' Bab, who was as engineer... On 5/24/2013 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Please people, stay in the real world. The description Alex gives has no relationship to what has been described in the paper or to what is possible. We have no way of knowing the melting point of that material claim to melt. We have no way of knowing how much melted. At the vary least, once the stainless steel container in which the Ni was located formed a hole, the H2 would escape and the nuclear reaction would stop. In addition, we do not know the melting point of the Ni in the container because it was reacted with a secret catalyst. In other words, we know nothing that would support such speculations. Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, You pose some interesting questions. If what you suggest is true, then this form of LENR would be a bulk effect. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 2:12 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test The other very important piece of the puzzle that this Rossi demo has revealed is how extreme the LENR can get. This tells us important new things about the LENR reaction. When the E-Cat melts down, its temperature reaches at least 2000C. The melting point of the ceramic used is in that temperature range. We know that ceramic is used in the reactor and that the LENR reaction can melt it. This is exciting. At that temperature, the nickel powder and the AISI 310 steel has long reached its melting point. The LENR reaction must be able to function in a liquid metal environment. The concept of an NAE supported in only solid material must be discarded. LENR must function in liquid and vapor. Riddle me that one batman. Collective, in other words, I will be awaiting your theories. SNIP
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic
Well. Okay. I DID say I have no idea.. Maybe AR piped in some liquid oxygen through one of those extra wires? Ol' Bab On 5/24/2013 5:30 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: David, have you ever actually heated stainless steel. I suggest you take a spoon from your collection in the kitchen and heat it to red hot. You will find that the spoon will turn black but will not ignite. If you keep heating to a higher temperature, it will soften and bend, but will not ignite. So tell me, why would you suggest the stainless in the Rossi device would ignite? Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 3:21 PM, David L Babcock wrote: I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic. The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have NAEs still operable in liquid state! Ol' Bab, who was as engineer...
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic
Here is some speculation about the cat and the mouse. The inner reaction chamber may well be what Rossi calls the cat. The volume which houses the heating elements may well be what Rossi calls the mouse. The Cat has a high COP due to the fact that it contains nickel Micro/nano powder. But the mouse has a COP just over 1. The mouse must also use hydrogen to produce a small level of reaction which is base solely on hydrogen nano particle formation since there is no nickel present in the volume of the mouse. The hydrogen must react with the bulk metal in and around the mouse. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the polariton theory, the hydrogen serves as a dielectric to surround all nano/micro particles (NMP). The spaces between the NMP serve as the nuclear active sites(NAS). NMP formation requires a hot area where vaporization of a material can occur, and a cold zone where the vapor can condense into NMPs. This kind of condensation cycle occurs with cesium between 800K and 1500K in a thermoelectric generator as I have posted before. As long as the hydrogen does not escape the reactor, the NAS can form if a condensation cycle between a hot zone and a cold zone can be maintained. Hydrogen can form NMPs, along with potassium and carbon. Nickel NMS would have become liquid and therefore, removed from the reaction. The Silicon nitride ceramic would not have produced vapor. One question is as follows: what was the gas in the volume between the inner reaction chamber and the outer shell? That gas may have participated in the reaction. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: OK Axil, I presume from this description you assume ALL of the cylinder containing the Ni+H2 melted along with the surrounding ceramic, which in your mind meant the temperature got to and stayed abouve 2000° long enough to completely melt the stainless container and surrounding ceramic. Is this correct? Normally, a device making energy will be hotter in some regions than others. If the temperature gets too hot, the hottest point will melt, which in this case would allow all the H2 to leave. This would immediately stop the source of energy. Once this happens, were does the energy come from to melt the rest of the material? Actually, I expect a small; amount of liquid metal would contact the ceramic, lower its melting point, and produce a small amount of local melt. The description was not detailed enough to properly describe what actually happened. Until we see a picture of the melted region, what is the purpose of your speculation? Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. This info tells me that the inner secure reaction chamber and the surrounding ceramic core melted, but not the outer air cooled surrounding shell. *The reactor was not exposed to the air through a breach in the outer shell.* On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote: I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic. The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have NAEs still operable in liquid state! Ol' Bab, who was as engineer... On 5/24/2013 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Please people, stay in the real world. The description Alex gives has no relationship to what has been described in the paper or to what is possible. We have no way of knowing the melting point of that material claim to melt. We have no way of knowing how much melted. At the vary least, once the stainless steel container in which the Ni was located formed a hole, the H2 would escape and the nuclear reaction would stop. In addition, we do not know the melting point of the Ni in the container because it was reacted with a secret catalyst. In other words, we know nothing that would support such speculations. Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, You pose some interesting questions. If what you suggest is true, then this form of LENR would be a bulk effect. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 2:12 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test The other very important piece of the puzzle that this Rossi demo has revealed is how extreme the LENR can get. This tells us important new things about the LENR reaction. When the E-Cat melts down, its temperature reaches at least 2000C. The melting point of the ceramic used is in that temperature range. We know that ceramic is used in the reactor and that the LENR
RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic
Axil, unless its described elsewhere, everything that Ive read/pics seen, indicates that the area inside the outer ceramic cylinder, and outside the stainless reactor core, is not hermetically sealed; this is the area that contains the carborundum ceramic which holds the coiled resistance heaters. In an earlier (leaked) photo of the hotcat, the end was open to the external air. Where do you gather that there is H outside the stainless reactor core? -mark From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 3:27 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic Here is some speculation about the cat and the mouse. The inner reaction chamber may well be what Rossi calls the cat. The volume which houses the heating elements may well be what Rossi calls the mouse. The Cat has a high COP due to the fact that it contains nickel Micro/nano powder. But the mouse has a COP just over 1. The mouse must also use hydrogen to produce a small level of reaction which is base solely on hydrogen nano particle formation since there is no nickel present in the volume of the mouse. The hydrogen must react with the bulk metal in and around the mouse. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the polariton theory, the hydrogen serves as a dielectric to surround all nano/micro particles (NMP). The spaces between the NMP serve as the nuclear active sites(NAS). NMP formation requires a hot area where vaporization of a material can occur, and a cold zone where the vapor can condense into NMPs. This kind of condensation cycle occurs with cesium between 800K and 1500K in a thermoelectric generator as I have posted before. As long as the hydrogen does not escape the reactor, the NAS can form if a condensation cycle between a hot zone and a cold zone can be maintained. Hydrogen can form NMPs, along with potassium and carbon. Nickel NMS would have become liquid and therefore, removed from the reaction. The Silicon nitride ceramic would not have produced vapor. One question is as follows: what was the gas in the volume between the inner reaction chamber and the outer shell? That gas may have participated in the reaction. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: OK Axil, I presume from this description you assume ALL of the cylinder containing the Ni+H2 melted along with the surrounding ceramic, which in your mind meant the temperature got to and stayed abouve 2000° long enough to completely melt the stainless container and surrounding ceramic. Is this correct? Normally, a device making energy will be hotter in some regions than others. If the temperature gets too hot, the hottest point will melt, which in this case would allow all the H2 to leave. This would immediately stop the source of energy. Once this happens, were does the energy come from to melt the rest of the material? Actually, I expect a small; amount of liquid metal would contact the ceramic, lower its melting point, and produce a small amount of local melt. The description was not detailed enough to properly describe what actually happened. Until we see a picture of the melted region, what is the purpose of your speculation? Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. This info tells me that the inner secure reaction chamber and the surrounding ceramic core melted, but not the outer air cooled surrounding shell. The reactor was not exposed to the air through a breach in the outer shell. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic. The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have NAEs still operable in liquid state! Ol' Bab, who was as engineer... On 5/24/2013 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Please people, stay in the real world. The description Alex gives has no relationship to what has been described in the paper or to what is possible. We have no way of knowing the melting point of that material claim to melt. We have no way of knowing how much melted. At the vary least, once the stainless steel container in which the Ni was located formed a hole, the H2 would escape and the nuclear reaction would stop. In addition, we do not know the melting point of the Ni in the container because it was reacted with a secret catalyst. In other words, we know nothing that would support such speculations. Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, You pose some interesting questions. If what you suggest
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic
Rossi is a very fast moving target. The timeframe when an earlier (leaked) photo of the hotcat where the end was open to the external air was before Rossi invented the cat and mouse design. At that time he only had the cat. The hydrogen envelope inside the shell is something I will be looking to verify as a way that Rossi has designed the mouse. Would Rossi come up with an entirely new gainful way to execute his reaction without hydrogen? On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Axil, unless its described elsewhere, everything that I’ve read/pics seen, indicates that the area inside the outer ceramic cylinder, and outside the stainless reactor core, is not hermetically sealed; this is the area that contains the carborundum ceramic which holds the coiled resistance heaters. In an earlier (leaked) photo of the hotcat, the end was open to the external air. Where do you gather that there is H outside the stainless reactor core? -mark ** ** *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 3:27 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic ** ** Here is some speculation about the cat and the mouse. The inner reaction chamber may well be what Rossi calls the cat. The volume which houses the heating elements may well be what Rossi calls the mouse. The Cat has a high COP due to the fact that it contains nickel Micro/nano powder. But the mouse has a COP just over 1. The mouse must also use hydrogen to produce a small level of reaction which is base solely on hydrogen nano particle formation since there is no nickel present in the volume of the mouse. The hydrogen must react with the bulk metal in and around the mouse. ** ** On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the polariton theory, the hydrogen serves as a dielectric to surround all nano/micro particles (NMP). The spaces between the NMP serve as the nuclear active sites(NAS). NMP formation requires a hot area where vaporization of a material can occur, and a cold zone where the vapor can condense into NMPs. This kind of condensation cycle occurs with cesium between 800K and 1500K in a thermoelectric generator as I have posted before. As long as the hydrogen does not escape the reactor, the NAS can form if a condensation cycle between a hot zone and a cold zone can be maintained. Hydrogen can form NMPs, along with potassium and carbon. Nickel NMS would have become liquid and therefore, removed from the reaction. The Silicon nitride ceramic would not have produced vapor. One question is as follows: what was the gas in the volume between the inner reaction chamber and the outer shell? That gas may have participated in the reaction. ** ** On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: OK Axil, I presume from this description you assume ALL of the cylinder containing the Ni+H2 melted along with the surrounding ceramic, which in your mind meant the temperature got to and stayed abouve 2000° long enough to completely melt the stainless container and surrounding ceramic. Is this correct? ** ** Normally, a device making energy will be hotter in some regions than others. If the temperature gets too hot, the hottest point will melt, which in this case would allow all the H2 to leave. This would immediately stop the source of energy. Once this happens, were does the energy come from to melt the rest of the material? ** ** Actually, I expect a small; amount of liquid metal would contact the ceramic, lower its melting point, and produce a small amount of local melt. The description was not detailed enough to properly describe what actually happened. Until we see a picture of the melted region, what is the purpose of your speculation? ** ** Ed Storms ** ** On May 24, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers.** ** This info tells me that the inner secure reaction chamber and the surrounding ceramic core melted, but not the outer air cooled surrounding shell. *The reactor was not exposed to the air through a breach in the outer shell.* ** ** On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic. The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have NAEs still operable in liquid
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test -how to melt ceramic
And what of the reagents within the reactor? the hydride or other hydrogen supplying material. These are very combustible/oxidisable in air at high temp, quite likely to the point of melting stainless. On 24 May 2013 22:30, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: David, have you ever actually heated stainless steel. I suggest you take a spoon from your collection in the kitchen and heat it to red hot. You will find that the spoon will turn black but will not ignite. If you keep heating to a higher temperature, it will soften and bend, but will not ignite. So tell me, why would you suggest the stainless in the Rossi device would ignite? Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 3:21 PM, David L Babcock wrote: I have no idea what it would take to ignite stainless steel, but this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic. The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to have NAEs still operable in liquid state! Ol' Bab, who was as engineer... On 5/24/2013 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Please people, stay in the real world. The description Alex gives has no relationship to what has been described in the paper or to what is possible. We have no way of knowing the melting point of that material claim to melt. We have no way of knowing how much melted. At the vary least, once the stainless steel container in which the Ni was located formed a hole, the H2 would escape and the nuclear reaction would stop. In addition, we do not know the melting point of the Ni in the container because it was reacted with a secret catalyst. In other words, we know nothing that would support such speculations. Ed Storms On May 24, 2013, at 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, You pose some interesting questions. If what you suggest is true, then this form of LENR would be a bulk effect. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 2:12 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test The other very important piece of the puzzle that this Rossi demo has revealed is how extreme the LENR can get. This tells us important new things about the LENR reaction. When the E-Cat melts down, its temperature reaches at least 2000C. The melting point of the ceramic used is in that temperature range. We know that ceramic is used in the reactor and that the LENR reaction can melt it. This is exciting. At that temperature, the nickel powder and the AISI 310 steel has long reached its melting point. The LENR reaction must be able to function in a liquid metal environment. The concept of an NAE supported in only solid material must be discarded. LENR must function in liquid and vapor. Riddle me that one batman. Collective, in other words, I will be awaiting your theories. SNIP
